The burden of proving the validity of a Settlement Deed lies with the beneficiary, particularly when it deprives other legal heirs of their shares, and evidence must substantiate voluntary execution.

JUDGMENT :

N.MALA, J.

1.The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.8 of 2006 dated 26.11.2007, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.694 of 2000 dated 01.07.2005.

2.The defendants in the suit are the appellants in the second appeal. 3.The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the Trial Court.

4.The plaintiffs and the defendants are brothers and sisters. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of their 1/5^th share each, in the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs' case was that the property originally belonged to their maternal grandmother, Mahamayee Ammal, she having obtained the same under a Settlement Deed dated 22.02.1946. The plaintiffs' contended that by virtue of the Settlement Deed, their maternal grandmother was in possession and enjoyment of the property in her own right. While so, on 26.12.1991, Mahamayee Ammal executed a registered Will in favour of her only daughter, Chellammal, the mother of the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs' mother Chellammal died on 20.07.1996, and Mahamayee Ammal, the grandmother, died on 25.05.2000. The plaintiffs contended that on the death of Mahamayee Ammal, the plaintiffs and the defendants, as the children of her deceased daughter, Chellammal, succeeded to the suit property as her legal heirs. The plaintiffs and the defendants became entitled to 1/5^th share each in the suit schedule property. While so, the plaintiffs requested the defendants for partition of the suit property. Since the defendants did not co-operate, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for partition of their 3/5^th share and for other reliefs.

5.The defendants in their written statement admitted the relationship of the parties, the execution of the Will, in favour of their mother, Chellammal and that she predeceased their grandmother, on 20.07.1996. The defendants contended that Mahamayee Ammal, after the death of Chellammal, had cancelled the Will under the Cancellation Deed, dated 27.05.1997 and thereafter, executed the registered Settlement Deed on 28.05.1997 in favour of the 2^nd defendant. The defendants further contended that the Settlement Deed was acted upon and that the revenue records were mutated in favour of the second defendant, even during the life time of Mahamayee Ammal. The defendants therefore contended that the second defendant had become the absolute owner of the property and therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the same. The defendants therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6.The plaintiff filed a reply statement contending that the Cancellation Deed as well as the Settlement Deed were concocted documents and that the second defendant, taking undue advantage of the health condition of the Mahamayee Ammal, fraudulently got the said documents executed in his favour. According to the plaintiffs, the Will dated 26.12.1991 was the last Will of Mahamayee Ammal and on the death of Mahamayee Ammal, the plaintiffs by intestate succession became entitled to 1/5^th share each in the suit property.

7.The second defendant filed an additional written statement denying the contention of the plaintiffs that the Cancellation Deed and the Settlement Deed were concocted documents. The second defendant further submitted that his grandmother, Mahamayee Ammal was in sound physical and mental health and that she lived for over 3 years from the date of execution of the Cancellation Deed and the Settlement Deed. The second defendant therefore submitted that there were no merits in the suit and it deserved to be dismissed.

8.Before the Trial Court, the plainti