Under the Evidence Act, a registered sale deed carries a presumption of validity; the burden to prove fraud by misrepresentation lies on the party challenging it, and mere allegations of illiteracy or low consideration are insufficient.

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the defendant. The suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgmnet of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.

2. The short facts pleaded by the plaintiff in her plaint are as follows:

The suit property originally belonged to the first plaintiff’s husband, Arumugam, to whom the Government had assigned the property along with a terraced house. Arumugam was in possession and enjoyment of the property until his death in 1988, leaving the first plaintiff as his sole legal heir. The first plaintiff continued to live in the suit property until her death, which occurred during the pendency of the suit. Upon her death, the second plaintiff became the sole legal heir.

2.1. The defendant is the son of the first plaintiff’s brother’s son. As he was employed in the Agricultural Office at Periyakanganankuppam and found it difficult to commute from Otteri Village, he was permitted by the first plaintiff and her husband, Arumugam, to stay in a portion of the suit property. After Arumugam’s death in 1988, the defendant performed the funeral and other related ceremonies. The second plaintiff was married in 1991 and began to live separately, while the first plaintiff continued to reside in the suit property and maintained her cattle there. The second plaintiff assisted in the maintenance.

2.2. For safety purposes, the first plaintiff handed over the assignment order and related records to the defendant. The defendant allegedly obtained the first plaintiff’s thumb impression and the second plaintiff’s signature on blank stamped papers, stating they were required for executing a mortgage deed to meet the expenses incurred for Arumugam’s death ceremonies. The plaintiffs are illiterate women, and nothing was written on the stamp papers at that time. During the Natham Survey, the first plaintiff's possession was recognised, and patta was issued in her name.

2.3. On 18.06.2000, the defendant allegedly brought henchmen and forcibly removed the first plaintiff from the property along with her cattle, claiming that he had purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 27.02.1991. The plaintiffs assert that they never executed any sale deed and that the defendant fabricated the documents using the blank signed stamp papers. They deny the thumb impression and signatures on the sale deeds and allege that the document dated 06.03.1991 regarding the superstructure is also forged. Hence, they sought declaration of title and recovery of possession.

3. The defendant’s written statement in brief is as follows:

The defendant contends that the sale deed dated 27.02.1991 and 06.03.1991 are true, valid and acted upon. The plaintiffs allegedly came to the registration office, executed the documents, and received full sale consideration. Arumugam had earlier mortgaged the property (Bogiyam) to one Shankar on 06.11.1983 for Rs.2,000/-, which the defendant claims to have discharged by paying Rs.3,000/- during Arumugam’s lifetime. After Arumugam’s death, the first plaintiff allegedly borrowed Rs.3,500/- for funeral expenses, Rs.2,000/- for other expenses, and Rs.1,500/- for the second plaintiff's marriage from the defendant. To discharge these debts, the first plaintiff is stated to have sold the suit property to the defendant through two sale deeds. The defendant further contends that even prior to the mortgage, he was residing in the suit property as a lessee under Shankar, paying Rs.50 per month. Therefore, the allegation of permissive possession is denied. After the purchase, he has been paying house tax, professional tax, and electricity charges. The suit is barred by limitation and is not maintainable.

4. On the basis of the above pleading, the trial Court has framed the following issues: