A registered sale deed is presumed valid; the burden of proof lies on those challenging its validity, and any suit for declaration must be filed within the limitation period.

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

The Second Appeal in S.A.No.470 of 2023 is arising out of suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellants.

2. The Second Appeal in S.A.No.437 of 2023 is arising out of suit for bare injunction filed by the sole respondent therein and 2^nd respondent in S.A.No.470 of 2023.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking in O.S.No.4831 of 2011 (i.e., suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellants).

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in S.A.No.437 of 2023 and 2^nd respondent in S.A.No.470 of 2023 and perused all the materials available on record.

5. The suit for declaration and injunction filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Trial Court and the suit for bare injunction filed by the respondent in S.A.No.437 of 2023 was decreed by the Trial Court. The First Appeals filed by the present appellants were also dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Challenging the said concurrent findings, the appellants have come before this Court.

6. According to the appellants/plaintiffs, the suit property originally belonged to 2^nd plaintiff’s mother-Sarathammal having purchased the same under Sale Deed dated 09.02.1972. She died on 28.04.1998 leaving behind the 2^nd plaintiff as her sole Legal Heir. The plaintiffs wanted to avail loan to construct a house in the suit property and hence, they applied for Encumbrance Certificate. From the Encumbrance Certificate, they came to know that the suit property was fraudulently sold in favour of 1^st defendant and he in-turn sold it to 2^nd defendant. The purported Sale Deed executed by plaintiff’s mother-Sarathammal in favour of 1^st defendant dated 20.08.1984 was a forged document.

7. According to the plaintiffs, the 2^nd plaintiff’s mother-Sarathammal was in the habit of putting her thumb impression till 1975 and thereafter, she had the habit of putting her signature. The thumb impression found in 1984 Sale Deed in favour of 1^st defendant was forged one. It is also stated that the Sale Deed executed by 1^st defendant in favour of 2^nd defendant is also not valid. It was also stated by the plaintiffs that the 2^nd plaintiff lodged a complaint against the defendants before the Central Crime Branch, Chennai and an FIR was registered in Crime No.155 of 2008 against the defendants. It was also stated that since the 2^nd plaintiff was absolute owner of the suit property as heir of Sarathammal, he executed a Settlement Deed in favour of his wife, 1^st plaintiff on 26.03.2008. After complaint made by the 2^nd plaintiff, the defendants attempted to commit trespass into the suit property and file a suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.1571 of 2011 on the file of the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

8. Since there was an attempt by 2^nd defendant to interfere with the possession, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit for declaration that the purported Sale Deed dated 20.08.1984 allegedly executed by Sarathammal in favour of the 1^st defendant was null and void. They also sought for declaration that purported Sale Deed dated 30.06.1999 executed by 1^st defendant in favour of the 2^nd defendant was null and void. The plaintiffs also sought for declaration of their title and consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession.

9. The 2^nd defendant filed w