The absence of a signature in a sale deed does not invalidate it, as the thumb impression of an illiterate person can be considered sufficient for due execution.

JUDGMENT :

Since the parties to the suit and the issues involved in the suit are common, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of both the Second Appeals by way of a common judgment.

2. SA.No.274 of 2001 arising out of the suit in O.S.No.130 of 1985. Similarly, S.A.No.275 of 2001 arising out of O.S.No.386 of 1982.

3. For the sake of convenience, “O.S.No.386 of 1982” shall be referred to as “Muthammal suit”, and “O.S.No.130 of 1985” shall hereinafter be referred to as “Alamelu suit”. In Muthammal suit, Alamelu was arrayed as a defendant. In Alamelu suit, Muthammal, her husband and children were arrayed as the defendants. The suit properties in both the suits are one and the same.

The brief facts, which give rise to the instant Second Appeals are as follows:-

4. In Muthammal suit, she contend that she derived title by virtue of a sale deed executed by one Mr.Irusa Gounder on 17.02.1982. In respect of Alamelu suit, she projected a title through a settlement deed dated 07.09.1978 executed by her husband Dasa Gounder. Therefore, their pleadings and defence is based on the sale deed stands in the name of Muthammal and settlement deed stands in the name of Alamelu.

Evidence and Documents:-

5. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined 3 witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked as many as 37 documents as Exs.A1 to A37. On behalf of the defendants, 3 documents have been marked as Exs.B1 to B3 and 5 witnesses have been examined as DW1 to DW5.

Findings of the Court below:-

6. The Trial Court, after having considered either side submissions and also after having gone into the oral and documentary evidence, has ultimately decreed the Muthammal suit and dismissed the Alamelu suit. When Alamelu preferred an appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the finding and decreed the Alamelu suit, but dismissed the Muthammal suit. Against the said finding, Muthammal has preferred S.A.No.275 of 2001 against her suit in O.S.No.386 of 1982. Similarly, Muthammal, her husband and children have filed S.A.No.274 of 2001 against the decree granted by the

First Appellate Court in Alamelu suit in O.S.No.130 of 1985.

Substantial Question of Law:-

7. At the time of admission on 27.02.2001, this Court has formulated a common substantial question of law, which is as under:-

“Are not the conclusions arrived at by the First Appellate Court in both the appeals opposed to the pleadings and materials (both oral and documentary) placed by the parties before it?”

Submission of either side counsel :-

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/Muthammal suit, would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has given a well considered finding, after thoroughly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence. It was also contended by the learned counsel of Muthammal suit that the Trial Court, after gone into various aspects, based reliance upon the Sale Deed stands in the name of Muthammal and the Adangal and Patta [Ex.A2], has rightly arrived at a conclusion in favour of Muthammal. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Muthammal that except the settlement deed, which was allegedly executed by Alamelu’s husband in favour of Alamelu, no other anterior document has been submitted by Alamelu. Therefore, the finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court in favour of Alamelu is without any evidence. Hence, prayed to interfere with the order of the First Appellate Court and thereby, prayed to decree the suit in O.S.No.386 of 1982 [Muthammal's suit] and dismiss the suit in O.S.No.130 of 1985 [Alamelu's suit].

9. Per contra, the learned counsel of the respondents/Alamelu would vehemently contend that the documents, which Muthammal relies is a sale deed, where admittedly neither a signature nor thumb impression of Irusa Gounder would find a place, therefore, the same is unenforcible, which has been rightly relied by the First Appellate Court to disbelieve the case of Muthammal. Apart from that, there are no anterior title to Muthammal to substantiate her claim. Hence