The burden of proof lies on the party claiming a settlement deed's validity to demonstrate it was executed voluntarily and without undue influence.

JUDGMENT :

(T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.)

The appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2010 in A.S. No. 134 of 2009 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2009 in O.S. No. 283 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

2. Heard Mr. S. Jaganathan, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.K.Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Sarvabhavam Associates for R1 to R3, and Mr. R. Dilli Kumar, learned counsel appearing for R4, and perused the material available on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the suit.

4. The appellants are the defendants in O.S. No. 283 of 2006, filed by the respondents 1 to 3 /plaintiffs seeking partition and claiming 1/4th share in the suit property. The plaintiffs contended that the suit property was the absolute property of the late Angathal, who died intestate, leaving behind three sons, one daughter, and the legal heirs of her predeceased son, Prammalingam.

5. The defendants D1 and D2 disputed the plaintiffs' claim, asserting that Angathal did not die intestate but had executed a settlement deed dated 13.02.1995 in favor of D1 and D2 (appellants 1 and 2) during her lifetime. They further contended that they had been in possession and enjoyment of the property ever since and, therefore, denied the plaintiffs' right to any share.

6. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. Upon considering the arguments and evidence from both sides, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit, holding that the settlement deed relied upon by the defendants was suspicious and not voluntarily executed by the alleged settlor, Angathal. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/4th share as prayed for.

7. Challenging the said findings, the defendants filed A.S. No. 134 of 2009 before the First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. However, the First Appellate Judge confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both courts, the unsuccessful defendants have preferred this Second Appeal.

8. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Late Angathal, wife of Marappan, had three sons namely, Sivasamy (D1), Prammalingam (deceased), and Mohankumar (D2) and a daughter, Pappathi @ Subbulaxmi (D3). The first plaintiff is the wife of Prammalingam, while the second and third plaintiffs are their children. Prammalingam predeceased his mother, Angathal, on 04.01.2000, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. The relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants is admitted. It is an undisputed fact that the suit property absolutely belonged to Late Angathal by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 04.06.1973, which was marked as Ex.A1 and is identical to Ex.B1.

9. The case of the plaintiffs is that the Angathal died interstate on 22.03.2006 leaving behind them as legal heris of predeceased Prammalingam and defendants 1 to 3, as her legal heirs to succeed her property, as defendants not amicable for partition they come forward with the suit, claiming 1/4th share in the property.

10. However, the contesting defendants, namely, Sivasamy (D1) and Mohankumar (D2), denied the plaintiffs' claim, stating that during her lifetime, Angathal voluntarily executed a registered settlement deed dated 13.02.1995 in their favor regarding the suit property. They contended that they accepted the settlement deeds and had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as absolute owners ever since.

11. In response, the plaintiffs filed a reply statement, disputing the genuineness of the settlement deed. They alleged that fraud was committed upon Late Angathal, who was an illiterate elderly woman, aged about 75 years, and that the settlement deed was obtained by ignoring the other legal heirs, namely, the plaintiffs and her daughter (D3).

12. To support th