The presumption of validity for registered documents under the Registration Act stands unless substantial evidence is provided to prove otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

[R. Subramanian, J.]

(PRAYER: First Appeal filed under Section 96 R/W Order 41 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and decree dated 31.07.2018 made in O.S.No.1 of 2016 (O.S.No.04 of 2016 District Court, Erode) on the file of the Fourth Additional District Sessions Court, Erode District, Bhavani.)

The defendant in OS No.1 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Erode is on Appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in the suit declaring that the Settlement Deed dated 29.08.2013 executed by the plaintiff in the said suit in favour of the defendant/appellant as invalid having been obtained by undue influence and fraud.

2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranks for the purpose of convenience.

3. The plaintiff is the father of the defendant. He had purchased the suit properties under Sale Deeds during the year 1971 and 1979. He had one son and 4 daughters. The son namely the defendant had been in Government service and retired in the year 2012. The wife of the plaintiff Valliammal died on 14.07.2013. Thereafter, the plaintiff executed a settlement deed on 29.08.2013 in favour of the defendant, who is his only son. Soon thereafter, he filed a suit in February, 2013 as an indigent person, seeking a declaration of settlement deed is invalid on the ground that fraud, undue influence and coercion. The plaintiff would plead that he was taken by the defendant and his friends in a car and made to affix his thumb impression in certain stamp papers. He has also claimed that the defendant and his friends threatened to throw him in River Cauvery, if he does not affix his left hand thumb impression in the document. It is also claimed that on 17.10.2013 the defendant and his friends came to the house and has attempted to dispossess him. He lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Land Grabbing Cell, Erode, the District Collector, Erode regarding the highhanded actions of the defendant. He would claim that the police did not take action because of the influence of the defendant. On the above contentions, the plaintiff sought for the declaration as stated above.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the settlement deed was executed by the plaintiff out of his own free will. He would also contend that the suit has been filed at the instance of the daughters of the plaintiff, who did not like the property being gifted to the defendant. It was also contended that the defendant was only taking care of the plaintiff and only after the plaintiff went to stay with his daughter Sivagami, the suit came to be filed. He would plead that the suit itself is at the instance of his daughters, who wanted to grab the property.

5. On the above pleadings, the learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues:-

1.Whether the settlement deed dated 29.08.2013 has been obtained by fraud and undue influence?

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

3.To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

4.Whether the suit has been valued and properly?

6. At Trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW1. Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. The defendant was examined as DW1 and 3 other witnesses including an attestor and the scribe of the settlement deed dated 29.08.2013 were examined as DW2 to DW4.

7. The Trial Court concluded that the evidence of PW1 would be sufficient to prove that the document has been obtained by fraud and coercion considering the age of the plaintiff. The fact that the daughters of the plaintiff did not accompany him at the time of execution of the settlement and was given lot of weight by the Trial Court in it reaching the conclusion that it has reached. The issue relating to valuation was answered in favour of the plaintiff. On the above findings, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit as prayed. Aggrieved, the defendant is on appeal.

8. We have heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.E.P.Senniyangiri, learned cou