Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mrs. Justice T.V. Thamilselvi, J
M.sivasamy – Appellant
Versus
P.neelamani – Respondent
What is the burden of proof required to prove the validity of a settlement deed? What is the effect of suspicious circumstances or lack of voluntary execution on the validity of a settlement deed? What are the legal standards applied to determine if a settlement deed was executed without undue influence under Indian law?
Key Points: - Plaintiffs entitled to 1/4th share as legal heirs of Prammalingam (!) - Burden of proof lies on party claiming settlement deed's validity to show voluntary execution without undue influence (!) - Trial Court found the settlement deed suspicious and not voluntarily executed; First Appellate Court affirmed (!) (!) (!) - Evidence showed attesting witnesses and scribe with conflicting testimony; issues framed to assess genuineness under Section 68, Indian Evidence Act (!) (!) (!) - Courts held settlement deeds Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 not proven to be voluntary; deed deemed non-existent and partition granted to plaintiffs (!) (!) - Non est factum principle invoked to assess coercion/undue influence given illiteracy and old age of settlor Angathal (!) (!) (!) - Appellate Court confirmed trial court findings; Second Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs (!)
JUDGMENT :
(T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.)
The appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2010 in A.S. No. 134 of 2009 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2009 in O.S. No. 283 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.
2. Heard Mr. S. Jaganathan, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.K.Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Sarvabhavam Associates for R1 to R3, and Mr. R. Dilli Kumar, learned counsel appearing for R4, and perused the material available on record.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the suit.
4. The appellants are the defendants in O.S. No. 283 of 2006, filed by the respondents 1 to 3 /plaintiffs seeking partition and claiming 1/4th share in the suit property. The plaintiffs contended that the suit property was the absolute property of the late Angathal, who died intestate, leaving behind three sons, one daughter, and the legal heirs of her predeceased son, Prammalingam.
5. The defendants D1 and D2 disputed the plaintiffs' claim, asserting that Angathal did not die intestat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
