All cases are listed here as no explicit judicial treatment indicators (e.g., "followed," "distinguished," "overruled," "reversed") appear in the provided descriptions. Each entry consists solely of a case identifier and a summary of its holding or key point, with no language referencing subsequent treatment by other courts. Explanations for each:

**Jami Appanna VS Jami Venkatappadu - 1952 0 Supreme(Mad) 340**: Description ("Suit to set aside void and in operative document.") is a factual/legal summary; no treatment keywords.

**Kharbuja Kuer VS Jangbahadur Rai - 1962 0 Supreme(SC) 140**: Description ("The burden of proof lies on the party making the allegations, and in this case, the plaintiff failed to establish fraud.") states a ruling; no treatment indicators.

**A. Anthony Pushpam Ammal VS Rev. Mother Superior - 2008 0 Supreme(Mad) 4485**: Description ("The burden of proof in cases of fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence lies on the alleging party. The presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act applies to documents thirty years old, and the party relying on such documents must prove their execution and attestation.") discusses legal principles; no treatment keywords.

**K. M. Madhavakrishnan VS S. R. Sami - 1980 0 Supreme(Mad) 71**: Description ("Written agreement ceases to bind the parties.") is a holding summary; no treatment indicators.

**Vathsala Manickavasagam VS N. Ganesan - 2013 5 Supreme 313**: Description ("IMPORTANT PIOINT Ingredients of ’admission’ u/s 17, Evidence Act and ’gift’ u/s 122, T.P. Act discussed.") notes discussion of statutory elements ("IMPORTANT PIOINT" appears to be a formatting note, not treatment); no treatment keywords.

**Thirumalai Vadivu Ammal (died) and 4 others VS Muthammal and another - 1999 0 Supreme(Mad) 467**: Description ("The burden of proof is on the person who seeks to sustain a transaction entered into with an illiterate person to establish that the said document was executed by him/her after clearly understanding the nature of the transaction.") is a burden allocation rule; no treatment indicators.

**K. A. Selvanachi & Another VS Dr. S. R. Sekar & Another - 2003 0 Supreme(Mad) 134**: Description ("Attestators are not bound for the contents of the document because of the fact that they have attested it.") states a legal position; no treatment keywords.

**K. Varadhan VS Pattammal (dead) and others - 1992 0 Supreme(Mad) 230**: Description ("Illiterate woman alleging fraud and misrepresentation.") is a brief fact summary; no treatment indicators.

**Chidambaram Pillai and others VS Muthammal and others - 1992 0 Supreme(Mad) 516**: Description ("Speak cloak of protection to be extended to illiterate women.") appears garbled but summarizes protection principle; no treatment keywords.

**H. Siddiqui (dead) by Lrs. VS A. Ramalingam - 2011 2 Supreme 427**: Description ("How of deciding first appeal.") is procedural summary (possibly "How to decide first appeal"); no treatment indicators.

**Kolandai VS Arasan Servai and others - 1993 0 Supreme(Mad) 209**: Description ("Purchaser, if a necessary party to suit for specific performance.") poses/answers a procedural question; no treatment keywords.

**KANWARANI MADNA VATI VS RAGHUNATH SINGH - 1975 0 Supreme(HP) 33**: Description ("A mortgage deed executed by a widow is valid and enforceable if it is executed voluntarily, the widow receives the consideration for the mortgage, the widow has the necessity to raise a loan, and the suit is filed within the limitation period.") lists validity conditions; no treatment indicators.

**Ramasami VS Krishnasami alias Krishnan and Others - 1996 0 Supreme(Mad) 286**: Description ("Onus lies on the person to prove the contrary.") is a burden statement; no treatment keywords.

**Sakkarathayammal VS Shanmugavel Chettiar - 1988 0 Supreme(Mad) 388**: Description ("Executant of a valid document cannot institute suit to avoid the same.") states a rule on valid documents; no treatment indicators.