Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 17364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N.MANJULA, J
Joseph Haribabu alias – Appellant
Versus
Lourdu Anandhi – Respondent
S.A. No.819 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Dhananjayan
For the Respondents: Mr.D.Ferdinand
The irrevocable nature of a settlement deed requires the party challenging it to prove coercion, which was not established in this case.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act - Sections 91 and 92 - Settlement deed execution - Deed executed under alleged coercion - The irrevocable nature of the settlement deed requires the burden of proof on the party challenging it to demonstrate coercion. Courts upheld the validity of the deed based on the absence of evidence of coercion. (Paras 11, 12, 19)
(B) Limitation - The issue of limitation was raised regarding the declaration of the cancellation deed, but the courts found no merit in the appellant's claim. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, being the wife and son of the first defendant, filed for a permanent injunction and declaration against a cancellation deed executed by the first defendant, claiming the deed was obtained through coercion. The first defendant contested the validity of the settlement deed and alleged that it was executed under threat. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The courts below affirmed the validity of the settlement deed, noting the absence of evidence of coercion, and confirmed the decree of the trial court. (Paras 20, 21)
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the settlement deed and the alleged coercion in its execution. (Para 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the irrevocable nature of the settlement deed necessitates the burden of proof on the first defendant to demonstrate coercion, which was not established. (Paras 12, 19)
Result: The Second Appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding the plaintiffs' ownership and the first defendant's actions. (Para 2) |
| 2. issues regarding the title and injunction sought by plaintiffs. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 3. court's observations on the evidence and burden of proof. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. final ruling and confirmation of the lower court's decision. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the first defendant. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction and declaration to declare the cancellation deed dated 30.06.1999 and for consequential permanent injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit and the first appeal preferred by the first defendant was dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence the first defendant has preferred this second appeal.
2. The facts pleaded in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs in brief The first plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant and the second plaintiff is the son of the first defendant. The plaintiffs are the joint owners of the house bearing Plot No.24, Door No.5 of Vani Nagar, Valasaravakkam comprise in S.No.194/3 which is the suit property. The plot was purchased by the first defendant in the year 1983 and it was left vacant. After the first plaintiff got married with the first defendant a house was constructed over the suit property with the financial support offered by the first plaintiff’s parents and brothers and by selling her jewels. The first defendant developed an extra marital affair with another woman and ill-treated the plaintiffs and he also deserted them. The first defendant mortgaged the suit property with the second defendant and borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. On the intervention of the relatives and family members of the first plaintiff, the first defendant settled the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs through a settlement deed dated 28.06.1969 just to make some security for their life. The above settlement is an irrevocable settlement. The plaintiffs have accepted the settlement and started to be in enjoyment of the suit property as its owners by paying loan installments towards the subsisting mortgage in favour of the second defendant.
2.1 During June, 2001 the first defendant demanded the first plaintiff to sell the suit property and threatened her with the help of rowdy elements on 13.06.2001 and the first plaintiff lodged a police complaint. Hence the plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also restraining him from making any encumbrance over the suit property and to declare the cancellation deed dated 30.06.1999 executed by the first defendant as null and void and also to restrain the second defendant from handing over the title deeds of the suit property of the first defendant.
3. The brief averments in the written statement filed the first defendant in brief After purchasing the vacant site the first defendant had constructed a residential building to an extent of 1000 sq.ft. with his own money which was saved by him before his marriage. The first plaintiff’s parents and brother did not offer any financial support and it is false to state that first plaintiff’s jewels have been utilized for the purpose of raising construction in the suit property. The first defendant mortgaged the suit property for the purpose of constructing a residential building and obtained a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- apart from which the first defendant also spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards construction. The construction work was entrusted by the brother of the first plaintiff. However, the cost was entirely borne by the first defendant. The first plaintiff and his brother kidnapped the first defendant and obtained signature in various documents and hence the first defendant had lodged a police complaint and the same was registered in Cr.No.618/1999.
3.1 As the settlement deed was obtained by force and threat,
