The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish fraud in the execution of registered documents, which carry a presumption of validity.

JUDGMENT :

R.Hemalatha, J.

The appellant is the first defendant in O.S.No.1166 of 2013, on the file of the XVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The first respondent / plaintiff filed the suit for the following reliefs :

(a)declaration that the General Power of Attorney deed dated 23.07.2010 (Ex.A2) executed by the plaintiff is null and void.

(b)declaration that the registered Mortgage Deed dated 07.09.2011 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- is null and void.

(c)permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, his men and agents from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(d)permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their men and agents from alienating or encumbering the suit property.

(e)to order costs of the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present second appeal would also be indicated.

3. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows :

The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property in Survey Number 123 (part), Plot No.211, TNHB Colony, Velachery, Chennai, measuring 489 sq.ft. She borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the first defendant on 22.02.2010 and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. She executed a registered Mortgage deed (Ex.A3) on the same day. After part payment of the said loan amount, she executed a registered General Power of Attorney dated 23.07.2010 (Ex.A2) in favour of the first defendant to deal with the suit property. On 07.09.2011, the entire mortgage loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was discharged by the plaintiff and she requested the first defendant to cancel the General Power of Attorney (Ex.A2). The plaintiff is an illiterate. Taking advantage of the same, the first defendant had fraudulently fabricated a registered Mortgage deed dated 07.09.2011 (Ex.A5) as if the plaintiff had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from her. The first defendant, in fact, informed the plaintiff that he was cancelling the earlier Mortgage deed dated 22.02.2010 (Ex.A3) and thus had played a fraud upon her. Subsequently, during July 2011 the first defendant attempted to evict the plaintiff from the suit property with the help of rowdy elements. Therefore, the plaintiff lodged a police complaint on 25.07.2012 (Ex.A6). Thereafter, the second defendant issued an Auction notice dated 03.01.2013 (Ex.A8) to the plaintiff. The plaintiff never borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the first defendant and the Mortgage deed dated 07.09.2011 (Ex.A5) is fabricated. Hence the suit.

4. The suit was resisted by the first defendant on the following grounds:

i. All the allegations contained in the plaint are false.

ii. The registered Mortgage deed dated 22.02.2010 (Ex.A3) was executed by the plaintiff.

iii.The said document was prepared in Tamil, read over and explained to the plaintiff.

iv. The first defendant had lent his hard earned money to the plaintiff.

v. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and hence, liable to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

"i. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable?

ii. Whether the plaintiff has repaid the entire loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest on 07.09.2011 to the first defendant ?

iii. Whether the first defendant has fraudulently obtained the plaintiff's thumb impression in the Mortgage deed dated 07.09.2011 ?

iv. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material facts in this case ?

v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the two reliefs of declaration as prayed for ?

vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the two reliefs of permanent injunction as prayed for ?

vii. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled ?

6. In the trial Court, the plaintiff examined herself and one another witness and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A15. The first defendant examined himself and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B16.

7. The learned trial court judge, on considering the eviden