Madras High Court
Pavunambal vs Raja on 28 February, 2022
SA.No.145/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
SA.No.145/2022 and CMP.No.2921/2022
Pavunambal .. Appellant
Vs.
Raja .. Respondent
Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2020 passed in
AS.No.43/2018 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge,
Ariyalur, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned
Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, in O.S.No.108/2010 and allow the appeal
dated 02.08.2018.
For Appellant : M/s.A.Vinupradha
JUDGMENT
(1) The defendant in the Suit in O.S.No.108/2010 on the file of the Sub
Court, Ariyalur is the appellant in the Second Appeal.
(2) The respondent in this Appeal, as plaintiff filed the Suit in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1 Page of 7
SA.No.145/2022
O.S.No.108/2010 for recovery of possession of the Suit property
which is described as an extent of 1023 ¾ sq ft of land with a tiled
house built therein in New Natham S.F.No.426/2004 in Palayapadi
Village, Ariyalur.
(3) It is not in dispute that the defendant and her daughter had executed
a registered Sale Deed dated 19.02.2009 in favour of the plaintiff in
respect of the Suit property. It is also admitted that defendant is the
paternal aunt of the plaintiff. It is the case of plaintiff that after
purchase he renovated the building and agreed to let the defendant
be in permissive occupant on her request as she wants
accommodation till she finds an alternative place. Stating that the
defendant did not keep up the promise as there was no sign of
defendant seeking an alternative place, the plaintiff filed the Suit
after a personal demand and issuing notice revoking the permission
and calling upon the defendant to vacate the Suit property.
(4) The Suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant
she was married to one karuppiah who died immediately after the
birth of a female child. It is the case of defendant that she was under
the mercy of her brother namely the father of plaintiff who promised
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 Page of 7
SA.No.145/2022
to help the defendant to maintain her family and administer her
properties.
(5) It is further stated that the plaintiff 's father was always in a position
to dominate the will of the defendant and that the plaintiff and his
father obtained the Sale Deed from her and daughter without any
consideration by coercion and under influence. It is admitted that the
Sale Deed itself was executed by the defendant and her daughter. It
is also stated by the defendant that she had executed a Settlement
Deed in favour of her daughter conveying her right in respect of the
Suit property even before the sale. In the Written Statement a few
other circumstances were also pointed out to indicate that the
defendant was always under the care and custody of the plaintiff 's
father and that she could not resist the Sale Deed especially when it
was done at the time when the defendant had arranged the marriage
of her daughter.
(6) Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and
another witness by name Arumugam. On behalf of plaintiff, Ex.A1
to A6 were marked before the Trial Court. Similarly, defendant
examined her as DW1 and another witness by name Tirunavukarasu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 Page of 7
SA.No.145/2022
as DW2. The defendant also filed documents Ex.B1 to B3. Based on
appreciation of pleadings and evidence, the Trial Court decreed the
Suit after holding that the defendant had not proved her case. Since,
the document under Ex.A1 namely the Sale Deed executed by the
defendant in favour of the plaintiff is not challenged on the ground
that is vitiated by fraud or coercion or undue influence, the Trial
Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to relief as the defendant's
possession is not lawful. Aggrieved by the findings of the Trial
Court, the appellant preferred an appeal and the First Appellate
Court dismissed the appeal in AS.No.43/2018 (before the I
Additional District Munsif Court, Ariyalur). Aggrieved by the
concurrent findings of the Courts below the above Appeal is
preferred.
(7) The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law
in the Memorandum of Grounds of Second Appeal.
1.Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the
Courts below was right in rejecting that Ex-B1 to
Ex-B3 is correct in law, when such documents
establishes the plaintiff has caused undue influence
in Execution of Exhibit A1?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 Page of 7
SA.No.145/2022
2.Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the
Courts below were right in passing a decree when
the defendant has disputed the execution of the sale
deed in Exhibit A1 is correct in law?
3.Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the
Court below failed to consider that the plaintiff has
not filed the Suit for declaration?
(8) It is admitted that the document under Ex.A1 is duly registered. It is
also admitted that the Sale Deed under Ex.A1 dated 19.02.2009 is
valid and no step was taken by the defendant to set aside the
document on the ground of undue influence. It is to be noted that
under Section 19 A of the Contract Act, “when consent to an
agreement is caused by undue influence, the agreement is a contract
voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.”
(9) In this case, admittedly the appellant has not filed any Suit or raised
a counter claim to set aside or rescind the Sale Deed on the ground
of undue influence. The Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court
have considered all the issues elaborately in the light of pleadings
and held that the defendant has no right over the Suit property after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 Page of 7
SA.No.145/2022
executing a valid Sale Deed. The Courts below have rendered the
findings after proper appreciation of evidence and this Court finds
no substance in any of the substantial questions of law framed by the
appellant. Hence, this Court find no merits in the Second Appeal.
(10) In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed with costs confirming
the judgment and decree made in AS.No.43/2018 dated 17.02.2020
passed on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Ariyalur,
in confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.108/2010
02.08.2018 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur.
Consequently connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28.02.2022
cda
Internet : Yes
To
1. The Additional District Judge, Ariyalur.
2. The Sub Court, Ariyalur.
3. The Section Officer, VR Records,
High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 Page of 7
SA.No.145/2022
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
cda
SA.No.145/2022
28.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 Page of 7
