The validity of a release deed executed 37 years prior cannot be challenged based on fraud allegations that lack credible evidence, and claims for partition are barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.11907 of 2019, on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, is the appellant herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their litigative status before the Trial Court.

3(a). The plaintiff had originally filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/5 share of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and for other ancillary relief, on the original side of this Court in C.S.No.695 of 2003.

3(b). The defendants filed their written statement, wherein a defence was set opposing the claim of the plaintiff by inter alia contending that the plaintiff got married to Deivasigamani on 02.02.1966. She executed a release deed in favour of the defendants 1 to 4 and the same was registered with the Sub Registrar Office, Saidapet, in the year 1966.

3(c). The third defendant had filed a partition suit against the defendants 1 and 2, which was culminated in a compromise decree before this Court on 20.01.2001. The plaintiff thereafter took out an application to amend the plaint in C.S.No.695 of 2003, wherein she wanted to have the registered release deed said to have been executed by her in favour of the defendants 1 to 4 set aside and declared as null and void. The said amendment application was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The defendants 1 and 2 challenged the same before the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.196 of 2006, on the ground that the challenge to the released deed after a period of 37 years is not maintainable and is barred by limitation.

3(d). The Honourable Division Bench of this Court granted liberty to the defendants 1 and 2 to raise the question of limitation in the instant suit. Accordingly, the defendants 1 and 2 filed additional written statement raising the question of limitation. Owing to the increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the original side of this Court, the suit in C.S.No.695 of 2003 was transferred to this Court and the same was renumbered as O.S.No.11907 of 2010.

4. On the above said pleadings, the Trial Court framed four issues. The parties were directed to let in oral and documentary evidence. On the directions of this Court, the second defendant entered the witness box and deposed evidence as D.W.1 and filed proof affidavit and marked three documents as Exs.B1 to B3. During the cross-examination of D.W.1, learned counsel for the plaintiff marked 32 documents as Exs.A1 to A32. On the side of the plaintiff, the husband of the plaintiff, namely, Deivasigamani was examined as P.W.1 and the plaintiff was examined as P.W.2 and through her, Ex.A4 was marked.

5. On completion of the evidence, both sides advanced their oral submissions and on perusal of the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed this appeal.

6. Pending this appeal, the original plaintiff expired and therefore, her legal representatives were brought on record.

7. Pending suit, the defendant, namely, Rajeswari Ammal died after filing of her written statement, but before giving evidence. Since the plaintiff, namely, Mangayarkarasi and the defendants 1 to 3, namely, M.Neminathan, M.Janarthanan and Suryabai are her legal heirs, they were impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased defendant before the Trial Court. The fourth defendant, namely, Nirmala is the purchaser of the suit schedule properties.

8. According t