Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60613
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.Jayachandran, J
S.Kavitha – Appellant
Versus
R.Sridevi – Respondent
A.S.No.306 of 2024 | C.M.P.Nos.9843 | C.M.P.Nos.9845
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.Murugamanickam, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Chandrasekharan
For the Respondents: Mr.N.Malaisaravanan, Mr.R.Siddharth, AGP
Fraud in deed execution requires solid evidence; mere assertions do not substantiate claims, especially when the opposing party has a bona fide title.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, Section 96 - Appeal to set aside a judgment declaring a sale deed null and void - The plaintiffs contended that the sale deed executed by their husband was obtained by fraud during a time he was not of sound mind - The court held the first defendant was a bona fide purchaser and the evidence presented by the plaintiffs was inconsistent - The trial court dismissed the suit with costs. (Paras 11, 18, 27)
(B) Evidence Act, Sections 68 and 69 - Requirement for examination of attesting witnesses and its implications waived when registration is proved adequately - The absence of attesting witnesses was addressed by examining the Sub Registrar, defeating the plaintiffs’ claims. (Paras 26)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of a property fraudulently sold by their husband while he was incapacitated. The suit was previously dismissed by the lower court.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the first defendant as a bona fide purchaser and dismissed the suit.
Issues: The core issues revolve around the validity of the sale deed and the mental capacity of P.V.K.Saravanan at the time of execution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the evidence presented did not satisfactorily demonstrate fraud or incapacity, supporting the trial court's decision to dismiss the appeal.
Result: Appeal Suit is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. alleged fraud in property sale deed execution requires robust proof. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. evidence and witness examination critically influence property disputes. (Para 11 , 26) |
| 3. legal consequences of failure to properly plead denials and proof obligations. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 27) |
JUDGMENT
Suit O.S.No.793 of 2020 filed to declare the sale deed dated 23.06.2011 as Document No:2084 of 2011 registered at SRO, Kodambakkam, as null and void and to declare the plaintiffs as the absolute owners of the suit schedule property with consequential relief of permanent injunction, the suit was dismissed by the XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai on 18.04.2024 with exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/-. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs are before this Court as Appellants.
2. For convenience sake, the parties are described as per their status and ranking shown in the plaint.
3. Case of the plaintiffs/Appellants:
The suit property is the flat originally allotted to P.V.K.Saravanan in the partition among his brothers. The sale deed sought to be declared as null and void is the document executed by P.V.K.Saravanan in favour of R.Sridevi - the first defendant.
4. The plaintiffs are the wife and daughter of late P.V.K.Saravanan. The case of the plaintiffs is that, the suit property originally held by one Vellaiah Thevar, which he purchased under a sale deed dated 07.08.1958. After the death of Vellaiah Thevar on 28.08.1986, his only son P.V.K.Swamy @ P.V.Karuppasamy inherited the property and developed it as flats. On 31.08.1987, three sons of P.V.Karuppasamy Thevar got the property divided among them through a registered partition deed. In the said partition, the suit property was allotted to P.V.K.Saravanan. On 18.06.2011, Mrs.Amirthavalli, who is the sister of Saravanan, along with her sons, with an intention to grab the suit property, schemed and brought Saravanan from Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District to Chennai under the guise of his father admitted in an hospital at Chennai for his ailment. Taking advantage of the mental and physical condition of P.V.K.Saravanan, with the help and connivance of their Auditor, Sridevi, who is the first defendant, got his signature in the sale deed fraudulently and got it registered in the name of Sridevi on 23.06.2011 in connivance with SRO, Kadambakkam. In the said fraudulent document, the son of Amirthavalli is one of the attesting witnesses.
5. The said Amirthavalli had instituted a civil suit against her father and brothers in O.S.No.7967 of 2005 before the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and same is pending. While so, Saravanan, deceitfully taken from Kadaladi to Chennai and was severely beaten by culprits. Saravanan was admitted at Public Health Centre, West Mambalam, where he was treated as inpatient from 20.06.2011 to 24.06.2011. The fraudulent sale deed appears have been registered on 23.06.2011 at SRO, Kodambakkam, showing Chennai address as his residence, when Saravanan was actually in the hospital as in-patient. In fact, he was permanent resident of Kadaladi along with the plaintiffs - his wife and daughter. Just to show he is residing in the suit property, bank accounts opened few day prior to the registration.
6. The suit property was let out by Saravnan to different tenants and the rent was collected by Saravanan till his death on 24.07.2019 and was utilized for his medical expenses. The property was managed through P.V.K.Rajamahendiran, who is the elder brother of Saravanan. When the plaintiffs came to Chennai, after the demise of Saravanan through Rajamahendiran, they came to know about the fraudulent sale deed dated 23.06.2011 and the suit O.S.No.1150 of 2018 filed by the tenant by name Shanmugavadivel for injunction against Sridevi, the first defendant. Hence, after causing notice under Section 80 C.P.C. to the second defendant, namely, the Sub-Registrar, Kodambakkam, the suit for declaration and injunction.
7. Case of the first defendant/ first respondent:
Th
