JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Order 41 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 96 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in O.S.No.75 of 2013 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai and set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 08.01.2019 in O.S.No.75 of 2013 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai, by allowing the appeal.)

1. This Appeal Suit has been filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 08.01.2019 in O.S.No.75 of 2013 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai.

2. The appellant/plaintiff herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.75 of 2013 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai, against the respondents/defendants herein, for partition of 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties. The said suit was dismissed on 08.01.2019 by the Court below. Against the said dismissal order, the appellant/plaintiff is before this Court.

3. Heard on either side. Perused the material documents placed on record.

4. The appellant herein/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.75 of 2013 for partition of 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that, originally, the suit properties were belonged to one Kamatchi. The 1st respondent herein/D-1 is wife of the said Kamatchi and the appellant herein/plaintiff and 2nd to 6th respondents/D-2 to D-6 are his children. The appellant herein/plaintiff has executed a release deed, dated 01.12.2008 without mentioning any property. Subsequently, some of the properties were added in the release deed and forged the signature of the appellant/plaintiff in the suit schedule of properties. When, the appellant/plaintiff came to know the aforesaid facts, she has issued a legal notice to the respondents herein/defendants and also filed the suit.

5. Originally, the Suit properties were belonged to Kamatchi and the relationship between the parties are admitted by the respondents herein/defendants. The only contention raised by the respondents herein/defendants is that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties, since she has executed the release deed, dated 01.12.2008.

6. The suit in O.S.No.75 of 2013 was dismissed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Madurai, after full trial. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dated 08.01.2019, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant herein/plaintiff.

7. The point for determination is as follows :

(i) Whether the release deed is a forged one and it could be cancelled?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff has 1/7th right in the suit schedule property?

8. The execution of release deed, dated 01.12.2008 is admitted by the appellant/plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is suit schedule properties and subsequently added and forged her signature in the papers and no consideration for the release deed. Further, she has cancelled the said release deed.

9. Since execution of sale deed is admitted, only the appellant/plaintiff has to prove the fact that subsequently schedule of properties were added and they forged her signature. The appellant/plaintiff has not taken any steps to get expert opinion on the forged signatures. On perusal of the documents, it is revealed the fact that all signatures contained in the release deed seems to be signed by one person.

10. Further, the release deed executed by all the sisters (3rd to 6th respondents/D3 to D6 & Plaintiff). But it was cancelled only by the plaintiff unilaterally. It is not valid. As per release deed, all the releasers have received consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-. One of the sister who was examined as D.W.3 has admitted that she has also executed the release deed and received Rs. 3,00,000/-,as consideration.

11. Therefore, cancellation of release deed was not valid.

12. The relevant portions of the Judgment passed by this Court in Appeal Suit No.850 of 2010 in the case of G. Mohanvelu Vs. G. Kokila, are extracted hereunder :

...........

49. Our attention has also been drawn to essent