In cases involving illiterate women, the burden of proving that a transaction was not induced by undue influence lies heavily upon the beneficiary under the document.

1. The third defendant in O.S. No. 90/72 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddalore is the appellant herein. The plaintiff, the first respondent herein, filed the said suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for recovery of possession. The case of the plaintiff is that his father Marimuthu Banal is the son of the first defendant. The second defendant is another son, and the defendants 3 and 4 are the daughters of first defendant. The plaintiffs father was employed in the French Army Service and he has been sending amounts to his mother, the first defendant herein since the plaintiff was residing with the first defendant and out of the funds the first defendant purchased the suit property on 5.12.1958 under Ex.B-3, the registration copy of the same has been marked as Ex.A-19, from one Kothandarama Chettiar. On the very next day i.e. , on 6.12.1958 the first defendant executed a registered settlement deed Ex.B-4 (Ex.A-20 is the registration copy) in favour of both son Marimuthu Bal, and grandson the plaintiff. Under the said settlement deed, the father of the plaintiff was given the life estate and thereafter the plaintiff an absolute estate. The father of the plaintiff died in the year 1969. At that time, the plaintiff was a minor and he attained majority on 17.7.1969. Thereafter since the attitude of the first defendant towards the plaintiff had totally changed, the plaintiff demanded the first defendant to hand over possession of the suit property and there were exchange of notices. The first defendant denied the execution of any settlement deed and hence the suit has been filed. The defendants 2 to 4 have been impleaded as parties to the proceeding, as they are in occupation of the suit house.

2. The first defendant, the grand-mother of the plaintiff filed the written statement which was adopted by the other defendants. In the written statement, the first defendant contended, that the suit house belongs to her absolutely and that the case of the plaintiff that the sale consideration was paid by his father, is not true and that she agreed to execute the settlement deed in favour of her children and the plaintiffs father got the signature of the first defendant in the settlement deed, representing that the settlement deed is in favour of all the children and in fact she bonafidely believed the representation of her son Thangavelu as correct and executed the deed and she was under the impression that the settlement deed was written according to her wishes. But only later she suspected and took the registration copy of the document and found that it was not written as directed and according to her wishes. So she executed the revocation deed on 23.11.1961 under Ex.B-5, revoking the earlier settlement deed dated 6.12.1958. Her son Thangavelu (father of the plaintiff) handed over the original settlement deed to her as early as 1959 and since the settlement deed was not acted upon the same cannot be enforced. Further the said settlement deed is vitiated by fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation. The plaintiff has no right to the suit property.

3. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as seven issues and ultimately dismissed the suit finding that the sale consideration for Ex.B-3 was paid only by the first defendant and the plaintiff had miserably failed to establish his case that the sale consideration has been paid from out of the funds provided by his father. In respect of the settlement deed Ex.B-4 is concerned, the trial Court has found that the settlement deed is true but not valid, since the same was brought about by fraud and misrepresentation.

4. The plaintiff preferred an appeal A.S. No. 241/75 on the file of the District Court, South Arcot, Cuddalore. The lower Appellate Court had reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 7.4.80. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the third defe