Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S. SUNDAR, C. KUMARAPPAN
Shahida Begum – Appellant
Versus
Ramiza – Respondent
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 along with building to an extent of One Ground and 1270 sq.ft., situated in Koyambedu Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chenglpet District. The second item is also a plot in a sanctioned layout measuring an extent of 2 Grounds and 893 sq.ft. and an additional land measuring 1010 sq.ft. in Koyambedu Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District.
4. It is the case of appellant/plaintiff in the plaint that the suit first item was purchased by her father Late Sri M.A.Sheriff under a registered sale deed dated 06.02.1974 and the second item was purchased by him under a regi
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 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 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....
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 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....
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 essence of undue influence requires clear evidence of coercive circumstances affecting the validity of legal documents, which was upheld in this case.
The cancellation of a gift settlement deed is invalid if the donor reserves no right to revoke it, and the burden of proving absence of undue influence lies on the beneficiary.
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
