Hindu female's acquired property is absolute under Section 14(1); unproven mortgage claims fail against valid sale deeds and payment acknowledgment.

JUDGMENT :

S. Sounthar, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.1462 of 2011 is the appellant in S.A.No.248 of 2046. The suit is for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff had also sought for a declaration that Sale Deed dated 25.06.2008 executed by 1^st defendant in favour of the 2^nd defendant was null and void. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. The first appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed. Challenging the concurrent finding against him, the appellant/plaintiff preferred second appeal in S.A.No.248 of 2026.

2. In the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff, the deceased 2^nd defendant filed counter claim seeking recovery of possession from the plaintiff. The Trial Court decreed the counter claim. The first appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed. Challenging the same, the other second appeal in S.A.No.252 of 2026 has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

3. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property was purchased by his grandfather-Murugesa Reddiar in the name of his wife-Devaki, the 1^st defendant in the suit by selling his property situated in Door No.11, Rettakula Street, Tondiarpet, Chennai on 25.06.1971. The property of Murugesa Reddiar was sold for a Sale Consideration of Rs.18,500/-. On the same date, he purchased suit property in the name of his wife-Devaki for sale consideration of Rs.4,000/-. It is also pleaded that Murugesa Reddiar and 1^st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- from one Mayandi on 09.03.1992 and Rs.20,000/- from the very same person on 09.03.1992 by executing a Mortgage Deed. Subsequently, they borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from him by executing a Pronote on 10.09.1994. Since Mayandi demanded repayment of the amount, at his request the plaintiff paid the amount to the said Mayandi on behalf of his grandfather and grandmother. While arranging money for repayment, a Power of Attorney was executed by 1^st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It is also stated that the plaintiff paid funeral expenses during the death of Murugesa Reddiar. When the plaintiff requested his grandmother/1^st defendant to execute the Sale Deed in his favour in respect of the suit property in lieu of repayment of the above said sum, she refused.

4. At that point of time, M.Natarajan, one of the son of Murugesa Reddiar obtained signature of the plaintiff in some papers. Later, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the 1^st defendant sold the suit property in favour of 2^nd defendant on 25.06.2008. However, the 2^nd defendant has not taken any legal action to enforce his right under the Sale Deed. It was also stated that the 1^st defendant had got only 1/5^th share in the suit property owned by Murugesa Reddiar and hence, Sale Deed executed by her was not valid. It is further pleaded that the 1^st defendant has no legal right, title to execute the sale deed. The recital in the Sale Deed, as if Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to the plaintiff to discharge the amount due to him was also not paid. It is further stated that the 2^nd defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and therefore, the above said suit was filed seeking declaration of plaintiff’s title over superstructure in the suit property along with leasehold right in the land. The plaintiff also sought to set aside the Sale Deed dated 25.06.2008 executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the 2^nd defendant. He also sought for permanent injunction restraining the 2^nd defendant from interfering with his alleged possession over the