The burden of proving fraud in executing a registered settlement deed lies on the party alleging it. Even in cases of illiteracy, registration and valid attestation create a strong presumption of voluntary execution that cannot be rebutted by mere allegations without concrete evidence of coercion.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Balaji, J.

The plaintiffs, in O.S.No.2 6 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif cum judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur, are the appellants herein, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court.

2. The second appeal was admitted by me on 05.03.2026 on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in law by reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial court without properly appreciating the legal burden of proof upon the Defendant to disprove the Plaintiff's consistent and specific allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in the execution of the Settlement deed dated 16.07.2007?

(ii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court misapplied presumption under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and failed to consider that mere registration of a Settlement deed does not preclude a finding of fraud or misrepresentation, especially when the donative intent and voluntary execution are seriously disputed?

(iii) Whether the Appellate Court committed an error in law by ignoring documentary evidence such as patta, tax, and electricity receipts (Exs.A5 to A10) which are admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and support the plaintiff's claim of continuous possession and enjoyment of the property?

3. I have heard Mr.N.Rahamadullah, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.A.Kannan, learned counsel for the second respondent.

4. Brief facts that are necessary for deciding the second appeal and also the substantial questions of law are as follows:

The plaintiff and the first defendant are sisters. The suit properties originally belonged to one Nagammal, who had got it from her mother Guruvammal by way of settlement in the year 1955 and Nagammal executed a settlement deed dated 14.07.1981 in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of first item and ½ of the second item of the suit property. The sister of Nagammal executed a settlement deed on 20.02.1994 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the remaining ½ share of the second item of the suit property and thus, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit items 1 as well as 2. Even according to the plaintiff, the suit items 3to 6are undivided properties, standing in the name of Nagammal and all legal heirs of Nagammal are entitled to a share. The plaintiff would contend that the second item is a house, which is in possession of the plaintiff and her family members. In respect of which, all taxes and charges had been paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that taking advantage of her illiteracy and ill-health, the first defendant, her sister has fraudulently obtained a settlement deed on 16.07.2007, mis-representing to the plaintiff that she was signing for change of patta. However, according to the plaintiff, when the plaintiff was renovating the suit second item house, it was objected, citing the settlement deed executed by the plaintiff and immediately the plaintiff had applied for certified copy of settlement deed and contending that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit item Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff sought for a relief of declaration to nullify the settlement deed dated 16.07.2007 and also seeking for mandatory injunction.

5. The suit was resisted by the first defendant contending that the plaintiff voluntarily executed the settlement deed in favour of the first defend