A settlement deed executed and registered holds presumptive validity unless proven contrary; properties held in the name of a female are presumed self-acquired unless evidence suggests otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

P. Dhanabal, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the decree and Judgment passed by the II Additional District Judge, Salem in AS.No.52 of 2014 dated 01.04.2015

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the main suit filed for declaration to declare that the settlement deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant as null and void and to grant permanent injunction restraining the 1^st defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and for grant of decree of mandatory injunction directing the 2^nd defendant to restore the water tap connection to the suit property. The trial court has dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment passed by the trial court, the 1^st defendant has preferred appeal suit in A.S.No.15 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Salem. The first appellate court also dismissed the suit by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, this present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property absolutely belonging to the plaintiff and she purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 04.06.2001 and from the date of purchase, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The house situated in the property has water tap connection under Assessment No.2013664. At the time of purchase, there was a tiled house in the suit property. Thereafter, she altered the same and constructed the terraced house by spending her own money. The property tax, water tap connection and EB service connection are all in the name of the plaintiff and she has regularly paying the necessary charges for the property to the Government. The Plaintiff married one Thangaraj and begotten a male child. Due to misunderstanding arose between them, marriage between the plaintiff and the Thangaraj was dissolved by customarily. Thereafter, the 1^st defendant voluntarily expressed his willing to marry the plaintiff and to look after the plaintiff and her son Sivamani. Therefore, the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant got married at Tirupati temple in the year 1999. After the marriage, the plaintiff and 1^st defendant lived in the suit property. The 1^st defendant had taken agency of Ramco Cement and requested the plaintiff to give guarantee for taking Agency of Ramco Cement. Believing the words of the 1^st defendant, the plaintiff executed a document believing that it was a surety for the business of the 1^st defendant.

3.1. While so, all of a sudden, on 12.01.2011, people from 2nd defendant / Corporation came to the suit property and disconnected the water tap connection provided to the suit property. When the same was enquired by the plaintiff, she came to know about the gift settlement deed dated 29.11.2001 in favour of the 1^st defendant. The plaintiff no need to execute any document in favour of the 1^st defendant and no such document has been acted upon. Till date, the possession of the property is under the plaintiff and the settlement deed is void and same was obtained without disclosing the nature of the document from the illiterate and innocent lady. The plaintiff came to know about the fraudulent document only on 13.01.2011. The 2^nd defendant disconnected the water tap connection. Based on the above said settlement deed, without water tap connection, the plaintiff is facing difficulties for the day-to-day affairs. Therefore, the plaintiff issue