Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S.Sundar, C.Kumarappan
Shahida Begum – Appellant
Versus
Ramiza – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of plaintiff's claims (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendants' response to plaintiff's claims (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. framing of issues for trial (Para 9) |
| 4. plaintiff's argument on undue influence (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court's analysis of undue influence (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. legal standards for undue influence (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. evidence requirements for settlement deeds (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. defendants' burden of proof (Para 25 , 26 , 28) |
| 9. validity of settlement deeds and rulings (Para 29) |
| 10. final dismissal of appeal (Para 30) |
JUDGMENT :
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
(1)Plaintiff in the suit in C.S.No.228 of 2013 on the file of this Court, is the appellant in the above Original Side Appeal.
(2)The appellant as plaintiff filed the suit in C.S.No.228 of 2013 before this Court for partition and separate possession of 7/72 share in all the suit properties and for consequential reliefs. The suit is also to declare the family settlement deed, dated 18.05.2005, bearing Document No.1854 of 2005 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Anna Nagar, Chennai, as null, void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff.
(3)The suit properties consist of two items. The first item is a vacant land alo
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming undue influence to establish that the other party had the ability to dominate their will, which was not proven in this case.
The court emphasized that for claims of undue influence, specific evidence must be provided, and familial relationships alone do not presume such influence, affirming the validity of the executed Set....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the property was purchased with the income of the father, and the settlement deeds were obtained through fraud and coercion, leading to the en....
A plaint is subject to rejection if it fails to disclose a legitimate cause of action or is manifestly vexatious, especially when fraudulent claims are evident.
The court affirmed the requirement for suits to disclose genuine causes of action, rejecting cases that are manifestly vexatious or rely on clever drafting to circumvent established legal limitations....
Registered settlement deed proved under Evidence Act Section 68 proviso absent specific denial of execution; certified copy admissible if original lost; partition suit barred without cancelling deed.
Point of law: When a relief of declaration along with the consequential relief is more comprehensive than what is contemplated in terms of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, even at the instance ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and proof of oral Hiba under Mohammedan Law, and the requirement to establish possession and acceptance of a gift in property disputes....
The main legal point established is the requirement to prove a Will as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act, and the distinction between a Settlement deed and a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
