The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies on defendants alleging forgery, and valid settlement and sale deeds establish the plaintiff's ownership rights.

JUDGMENT :

COMMON PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decrees dated 22.11.2016 in A.S. Nos.28 & 29 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2015 in O.S. No.1 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.

COMMON PRAYER: Cross Objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2016 made in A.S. Nos.28 & 29 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Dharapuram reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2015 made in O.S. No.1 of 2003 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Dharapuram in respect of the disallowed portion, by allowing this Cross Objections.

These two Second Appeals as well as Cross Objections arise out of O.S. No.1 of 2003 filed by one Periyathal, seeking a declaration that she is absolutely entitled to the suit property and for a consequential permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment.

2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff, Periyathal is the wife of one Velusamy, who was the son of one Arappa Gounder. Velusamy, died on 10.09.2000 and his father Arappa Gounder, died on 17.02.2002. The second defendant is the sister of the husband of the plaintiff and the first defendant is her son. The third defendant is the husband of the second defendant, and another son of the second and third defendants is the 4th defendant. Admittedly, Arappa Gounder had only one son by name, Velusmay, who is the husband of the plaintiff, Periyathal. He had two daughters besides the son Velusamy viz., Vanjathal and Ponnathal.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that she became entitled to the suit properties under two documents viz., settlement deed executed and registered by her husband on 19.04.1979 and a sale deed executed by her father in law, Arappa Gounder in her favour on 09.10.2000. The plaintiff basing her claim under these two documents, filed the suit.

5. The suit was resisted by the defendants claiming title under an oral family arrangement and also under a decree in a suit for specific performance. In fact, the defendants filed a counter claim in the said suit in O.S. No.1 of 2003, filed by Periyathal for declaring right and title of the first defendant.

6. The Trial Court, decreed the suit and dismissed the counter claim. However, on Appeal, preferred by the defendants in A.S. Nos.28 & 29 of 2015, the First Appellate Court allowed the Appeals, reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

7. As against the said reversal findings rendered by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred the above Second Appeals. Pending the Second Appeals, the plaintiff, Periyathal died and her Legal Representatives were brought on record as Appellants 2 and 3.

8. The above Second Appeals were admitted by this Court on 24.10.2017, on the following three substantial questions of law:-

“a. Whether in law the Lower Appellate Court erred in entertaining the counter claim when the same is barred by limitation and that there is no cause of action for?

b. Whether in law the Lower Appellate Court erred in overlooking that the onus is cast upon the counter claimants to prove their plea of fraud when the defendants who raised the plea has to discharge their onus especially when a presumption is made in favour of the sale deed marked as Ex.A3 which has been duly registered, under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act as laid down in the Judgment reported in 2009 (2) CTC 861 and 2008 (2) MLJ 880?

c. Whether in law the Lower Appellate Court erred in overlooking that when the very decree in O.S. No.165 of 2001 being collusive is not binding and enforceable against the defendants, for she was not a party to the said suit and her purchase was much before th