IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON :28.06.2019

PRONOUNCED ON:05.07.2019

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN

S.A.No.701 of 2019

R.Viswanathan

... Appellant/Appellant/Defendant

Vs.

Christopher Jayaprakash ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

Prayer:

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.,

against the judgment and Decree dated 07.01.2019 in A.S.No.286

of 2018 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Court,

Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2018 in

O.S.No.3541 of 2015 on the file of XV Assistant City Civil

Court, Chennai.

For Appellant : Mr.K.P.Santhosh

J U D G M E N T

Challenge in this Second Appeal is made to the judgment

and decree dated 07.01.2019 passed in A.S.No.286 of 2018 on the

file of XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai,

confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2018 passed in

O.S.No.3541 of 2015 on the file of XV Assistant Judge, City

Civil Court, Chennai.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

3.The suit has been laid by the plaintiff against the

defendant for the reliefs of declaration and permanent

injunction. The relief of declaration prayed for by the

plaintiff is that the cancellation deed dated 01.06.2015

unilaterally executed by the defendant is not valid, illegal and

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

not binding on him and the relief of permanent injunction is

prayed for restraining the defendant, his men, agent and all

persons claiming under them from in any manner interfering with

the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit

property.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is found

that the plaintiff claims title to the suit property based on

the settlement deed dated 09.04.2007 executed in his favour by

the defendant and his wife Thanapackiam, the certified copy of

which has been marked as Ex.A2. The defendant is the father of

the plaintiff and Thanapackiam is the mother of the plaintiff.

According to the plaintiff, the defendant is not entitled to

unilaterally cancel the abovesaid settlement deed and inasmuch

as the defendant without any basis, had cancelled the settlement

deed, by a deed of cancellation on 01.06.2015, the copy of which

document has been marked as Ex.A6 and thereby attempted to

interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the suit

property, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated

to institute the suit against the defendant for appropriate

reliefs.

5.The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit

contending that he was suffering from Parkinson's decease and

the plaintiff exercising coercion and undue influence had

obtained the Ex.A2 settlement deed from him and the plaintiff

was in a dominant position and therefore the settlement deed

Ex.A2 had not been voluntarily executed by him and in such view

of the matter, according to the defendant, he had cancelled the

settlement deed by a deed of cancellation on 01.06.2015 and

hence it is contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek

and obtain the reliefs prayed for.

6.As rightly found by the Courts below, it is found that

the defendant, as such, has not denied the execution of Ex.A2

settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff, however the

defendant would only plead that the same had been obtained by

the plaintiff by coercion and undue influence etc., As regards

the above case pleaded by the defendant, on the part of the

plaintiff in the obtainment of Ex.A2 settlement deed, the person

pleading the abovesaid factors should establish the same.

Furthermore, according to the defendant, the plaintiff was in a

fiduciary relationship with him and in a dominant position and

misusing the same had obtained the settlement deed from him and

therefore he had bee