Mrs. R. Bhanumathi, J.

A.S.No.1104 of 1987: This appeal arises out of the common judgment and decree in O.S.No.6331 of 1983, dated 21.8.1986, decreeing the plaintiffs suit for rectification of the settlement deed, dated 27.8.1981 as per the agreement dated 1.6.1982 relating to the house in door No.23, Periyapalli Street, Raja Annamalai Puram, Madras. Unsuccessful defendant is the appellant.

2. Transferred A.S.No.1120 of 2001: This appeal arises out of dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.415 of 1983 (common judgment) dated 21.8.1986 for declaration that the agreement, dated 1.6.1982 was obtained from the plaintiff Veronica under threat and coercion and also for permanent injunction.

3. Both the suits relate to the same property (door No.23, Periyapalli Street, Raja Annamalai Puram, Madras) in T.S.No.4465 (part). Both the appeals arise out of the common judgment. Since common points for determination arise in both the appeals, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. Evidence in the trial Court was recorded in O.S.No.6331 of 1983. For convenience and to avoid any possible mistaken reference, parties would be referred as in their rank in O.S.No.6331 of 1983.

4. The case of the plaintiff could briefly be stated thus:

The plaintiff and the defendant are brother and sister and are son and daughter of one B. Sandy. The father executed two settlement deeds on 27.8.1991 - one in favour of the plaintiff (Ex.A-2) and another in favour of the defendant (Ex.A-1). As per the settlement deeds, door No.22 was settled in favour of plaintiff and door No.23 in favour of the defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that, his father Sandy had intended to settle the property at door No.23 (bigger house) in his favour and only door No.22 (smaller house) in favour of his sister/defendant. According to the plaintiff, due to oversight, old age and depression, the father had executed the document otherwise, and thus mistake had crept-in in the settlement deeds in the description of the property. Further case of the plaintiff is that, he and the defendant were not shown the settlement deeds nor were they aware of the mistake in the deeds. The mistake was noted only after several months when the father had handed over the gift deeds to the plaintiff. Noting the mistake, the defendant had executed Ex.A-3/agreement (1.6.1982) agreeing to rectify the mistake in the gift deed. Since the defendant did not execute the rectification deed as agreed by her, the plaintiff has filed the suit for rectification of the settlement deed, dated 27.8.1981 on the basis of the agreement, dated 1.6.1982 executed by her.

5. Refuting the averments in the plaint and affirming the correctness of description of the property in Exs.A-1 and A-2/settlement deeds, the defendant has filed the written statement. The defendant has denied the execution of Ex.A-3. According to the defendant, when her marriage was proposed and fixed, under threat and coercion the plaintiff had taken her signature in the blank stamp papers. She denies knowledge of the contents of the alleged agreement (Ex.A-3). According to her, her signature was taken on blank papers and also on non-judicial stamp papers under the pretext of raising the funds to discharge the liability incurred with one A.R.Krishnasamy. When the plaintiff had tried to intervene in the possession of the defendant, the defendant had filed O.S.No.415 of 1984 to declare Ex.A-3 as inoperative and also for permanent injunction.

6. On the above pleadings, relevant issues were framed in the trial Court. The trial Court disbelieved Ex.A-6 - Unregistered deed of rectification said to have been executed by father Sandy. The trial Court had compared the signature of Sandy found in Ex.A-6 with other admitted signatures, and it came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had fabricated Ex.A-6. Though the trial Court found Ex.A-6 to be a fabricated one, it proceeded to grant the equitable relief of rectification of the deed