The court held that allegations of fraud and misrepresentation regarding the partition and release deeds were unsubstantiated, reaffirming that the burden lies on the claimant to prove such claims, which were barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

Challenging the decree in O.S. No.3223 of 2018, on the file of the XXIII Additionall City Civil Court, Chennai, are the appellants.

2. I have heard Mr.V.Manohar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.D.Ferdinand, learned counsel for M/s.BFS Legal for the respondents.

3. PLEADINGS:-

(a) Plaint in brief:-

The defendants 1 to 3 are nephews of the plaintiff, being her elder brother’s sons. The 4^th defendant is the plaintiff’s deceased nephew’s son. The suit has been filed for partition and separate possession of the suit property. The defendants 1 to 3 conspired amongst themselves, taking advantage of the plaintiff’s illiteracy and obtained the plaintiff’s signature in a partition dated 09.04.2001 and also got it registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet. The plaintiff is not aware of the contents of the document. The plaintiff was under the impression that she was signing for mutation of revenue records in the name of C.R.Parthasarathy, her brother, herself and her sister, Sulochana’s name. These facts came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only in April 2018 when the plaintiff obtained an Encumbrance Certificate, after the demise of her brother, C.R.Parthasarathy. Immediately, the plaintiff demanded her 50% share in the property, as she was the joint owner alongwith the deceased brother, C.R.Parthasarathy and Sulochana, the plaintiff’s sister Sulochana having died on 18.02.2009 and thus, the plaintiff was entitled to 50% and his brother, C.R.Parthasarathy, was entitled to 50%. The plaintiff does not know English language and her husband also lacked good knowledge in English and the signature of the plaintiff was obtained fraudulently. The plaintiff never saw her sister in the Registrar’s Office and the plaintiff’s sister Sulochana’s signature has been forged. The document has been brought about by fraud and misrepresentation. The further document, viz., Release Deed dated 23.08.2012 is also non-est in law and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not even received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- which is mentioned in the document, viz., the partition deed, which is the plaintiff’s share according to the partition deed. The plaintiff has called upon the defendants to come forward for an amicable partition. However, the defendants have not complied with the demands. The plaintiff issued a lawyer’s notice on 18.04.2018, the defendants did not even choose to send a reply, hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit, challenging the partition deed dated 09.04.2001 and the consequent Release Deed dated 23.08.2012 and also seeking partition and other reliefs.

(b) Written Statement filed by the 1st Defendant:-

The suit is motivated and is only at the instance of the son of the plaintiff. There is no truth or merit in any of the allegations made in the plaint. The suit has not been valued properly the suit is also barred by law of limitation for having been filed after lapse of 17 years. The other sister Sulochana, was very much present in the Registrar’s Office and she has also signed the Registration endorsement before the Sub Registrar. In such circumstances, the plaintiff’s allegation that her sister, Sulochana’s signature has been forged is totally false and vexatious. The plaintiff has signed in English and falsely claimed that she is illiterate. The sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid as reflected in the document and the allegation to the contra, is stoutly denied. The document was act