The court affirmed the validity of an exchange deed and established the plaintiff's ownership, emphasizing the burden of proof on the party challenging a registered document.

ORDER :

1. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit filed for declaration and consequential injunction, unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the present appeal.

2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.

3. The suit property is originally purchased by Panchalai Ammal in a Court auction sale in O.S.No.603 of 1935 in E.P.No.747 of 1936 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Ramasamy Konar had two sons, namely Kannayira Konar and Kanna Konar. The Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Kannayira Konar whereas the elder son of Ramasamy Konar, namely Kanna Konar married one Adhiyammal. From the said wedlock, Kanna Konar had one son by name Pandurangan and two daughters viz., Vijaya and Saroja. Pandurangan died issue less on 14.10.1999 and two daughters viz., Vijaya and Saroja also died issue less on 05.05.2012 and 21.12.1991 respectively. It is further stated that Kannayira Konar filed a suit in O.S.No.10 of 1958 for partition against his brother Kanna Konar including the suit property. However, the suit was dismissed in respect of the suit property as it was the separate property of Panchalai Ammal. The said suit reached finality in appeal in A.S.No.612 of 1959. After the death of Panchalai Ammal, her only daughter Adhiyammal was enjoying the property. She constructed two shops in front of the suit property and constructed a house on the backyard of the shops. The defendants have no connection with the suit property whereas Adhiyammal and her daughter borrowed several amounts from the plaintiff and her husband for their medical treatment. Therefore, a Exchange Deed dated 10.08.2009 was entered into between the parties. Since the property with higher value was given to the plaintiff and property with lesser value was exchanged to Adhiyammal, the differential amount was also paid separately and the same was acknowledged by Adhiyammal and Vijaya under the receipt dated 10.08.2009. After the execution of such exchange deed, at the request of Adhiyammal and her daughter Vijaya, the plaintiff permitted them to reside in a portion of the suit property till their demise. Adhiyammal died on 13.02.2011 and Vijaya died on 05.05.2012 and subsequent to the demise of Adhiyammal and Vijaya, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. The said Adhiyammal and Vijaya have also executed a registered Will dated 10.08.2009 in respect of the property exchanged in favour of adopted son, namely Vignesh. The mutation also taken place in favour of plaintiff, rents have also been paid to the plaintiff by the defendants but subsequent to the death of Vijaya, the defendants attempted to trespass into the suit property, hence the suit.

4. The first defendant filed a written statement denying the entire allegations in the plaint and the same was adopted by the second defendant. In the written statement, the first defendant has admitted the relationship of Kanna Konar and his children. The first defendant has stated that the legal heirs of Kanna Konar and Adhiyammal died intestate and therefore, the defendants being the Class II legal heirs of Kanna Konar together succeeded to the property on the demise of Vijaya on 05.05.2012. According to them, they are the absolute owner of the property. It is stated that said Adhiyammal and Vijaya were sick and bid ridden for more than two years before their death and they were fostered by the defendants and the plaintiff being stranger to the family, taking advantage of the old age of Adhiyammal and the sickness of Adhiyammal and Vijaya fabricated the exchange deed dated 10.08.2009. According to the defendants, the value of the property which was given by Adhiy