The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving allegations of fraud, coercion, and undue influence and highlights the legal requirements for maintaining a suit for partition.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. The Second Appeal is directed against the dismissal of the suit filed to declare the settlement deed dated 21.03.2003 as obtained by fraud, coercion and undue influence by the defendants and consequentially for partition and allot 1/3rd share to the plaintiff in the suit properties.

2. Plaint averments:

The suit filed by the plaintiff claiming that she is the eldest daughter of late V. Subramani. The 1st defendant is the second daughter of late V. Subramani and the 2nd defendant is the grant daughter of Subramani born to his son. The said V. Subramani died intestate on 01.08.2003 leaving behind the suit properties morefully described in the plaint as “A” schedule (residential building bearing door Nos. 214/16 and 214/17, Paper Mills Road, Perambur, measuring to an extent of 990 sq. ft. in total extent of 1810 sq. ft.) and “B” Schedule - Item No. 1 (Punja lands in Athupakkam Village, Tiruvallur District bearing S. No. 74-1 B1 - 00.76 acres, S. No 74 - 2A1 00.70 acres, S. No. 74 - 2B1 - 00.20 acres. Item No. 2 (Manavari land in S. No. 19-2B measuring 02.00 acres). After the demise of Subramani, the defendants refused to effect partition of the suit schedule property in spite of legal notice dated 19.09.2003 caused to them. They claim exclusive right in the suit property on the premise that late V. Subramani, had executed a settlement deed dated 21.03.2003 in favour of the 2nd defendant therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share. The alleged settlement deed is not a genuine document. Mr. V. Subramani, used to sign his name in Tamil and he never put his LTI. Whereas, in the impugned settlement deed, LTI of V. Subramani, is affixed and no reason stated in the said deed why Subramani did not affix his signature, though he is always used to affix signature. Therefore, there is doubt about the execution of the settlement deed. Alleging that the said settlement deed is a fabricated document to cheat and deprive the plaintiff from getting share in her father's property, the suit has been laid for relief to declare the said deed obtained by fraud, coercion and undue influence and consequentially to declare 1/3rd share in the suit property to the plaintiff and divide it by metes and bounds.

3. Written statement and additional written statement:

The suit claim denied. The residential house bearing Door No. 214/16 at Paper Mills Road is the absolute property of the first defendant which she purchased under sale deed dated 11.05.1984 from one Venu Ammal. The house in Door No. 214/17 is the absolute property of the 2nd defendant which she got under the settlement deed dated 21.03.2003 executed by late Subramani and duly registered at SRO, Sembiam. The late Subramani had also settled his property at Athupakkam Village (0.55 cents in S. No. 19/2) to the second defendant under settlement deed dated 09.04.2003 and the same duly registered at SRO, Gummidipoodi. The Sub-Registrars concern, after due verification had permitted the executants to affix his thumb impression, since he was not able to sign. The settlement deed was executed with free will and own volition without any fraud, coercion or undue influence. Only in respect of other properties left intestate by late Subramani, the plaintiff and defendants are entitled for share.

4. The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, had framed the following issues:

“1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to get preliminary decree for partition as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get declaration as prayed for?

3. Whether door No. 214/16 is belonged to 1st defendant?

4. Whether door No. 214/17 is belonged to 2nd defendant?

5. Whether the settlement deed dated 09.04.2003 is valid as alleged by the defendants?

6. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?”

5. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff Vasantha and one Sambasivam were examined as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively. The notice dated 19.09.2003 sent to the defendants seeking division of the properties and