The court ruled that the defendants failed to prove the validity of a Release Deed executed under undue influence, affirming the plaintiffs' entitlement to a share in the property.

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated August 10, 2021 passed in A.S.No.114 of 2019 by the 'learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court'], wherein and whereby the Judgment and Decree dated March 4, 2019 passed in O.S.No.3505 of 2016 by the 'learned XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai' [henceforth 'Trial Court'] was confirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be denoted as per their array in the Original Suit.

CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS

3. In the amended Plaint, it is stated that the Suit Property and larger extent of properties were originally owned by one Raji Chettiar. The said Raji Chettiar executed a Settlement Deed in favour of his son - Loganathan Chettiar on April 21, 1930 in respect of the Suit Property and some more extent of properties. The said Loganathan Chettiar had three wives namely, Radhabai, Kamatchi and Lakshmi. Through his first wife Radhabai, daughter - Vijaya @ Vijayam (12th defendant) was born. The said Vijaya @ Vijayam had two sons and one daughter namely, Senthil, Uma (2nd defendant) and Sivaraman (11th defendant). The first plaintiff is the wife of said Senthil and Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are their children. The first defendant - Veeraiyan is the son of said Loganathan Chettiar born through said Lakshmi. Second defendant - Uma is the wife of first defendant while the third defendant is the daughter born to them. The Defendant Nos.4 to 9 are tenants of the Suit Property The 10th defendant is son of Loganathan Chettiar born through said Kamatchi. Defendants Nos.13 to 15 are purchasers from the 1st defendant.

3.1. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are in joint possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. The plaintiffs are residing in a small portion of the Suit Property. Post the demise of Senthil, who is the husband of the first plaintiff, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are trying to illegally evict the plaintiffs from the said portion and not giving the plaintiffs’ legal share in the rent of Rs.75,000/- collected from Defendant Nos.4 to 9, tenants of the Suit Property, despite the various complaints preferred by the plaintiffs before various authorities. Further, lately, the first defendant has paid tax in his name for the small portion of the Suit Property where the plaintiffs reside, with a view to defeat and defraud the plaintiffs legitimate rights over the Suit Property.

3.2. Further case of the plaintiffs is that the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 attempted to alienate an extent of 600 Sq.ft. in the Suit Property, which was stopped by the plaintiffs’ objection for the same before Sub Registrar Office [SRO], Adayar. Further, the first defendant fraudulently made a Release Deed on February 3, 2016 from the mother-in-law of first plaintiff - Vijaya @ Vijayam, who has mostly been mentally unsound after she suffered a fall in October 2013. Further, on May 4, 2016, when the plaintiffs obtained encumbrance certificate, it came to light that during the lifetime of Senthil, husband of first plaintiff, without his knowledge, the first defendant had fraudulently sold some of the Suit Property on various occasions viz., September 19, 1990, November 9, 1994 and February 4, 2000.

3.3. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the Suit for declaration that the aforesaid Sales and Release Deed are null and void; for partition of the plaintiffs 1/6th share in the Suit Property; for direction against the first defendant to deposit the rent amount of Rs.75,000/- from the date of Plaint till the date of partition; for permanent injunction against the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 restraining them from alienating the Suit Property and from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of Suit Property; and for costs.

CASE OF DEFENDANT NOS.1 TO 3 AND 12

4. The Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 12 filed a common Written Statement denying the Plaint averments. The defendants aver that the 10th defendant is not a son of said Lo