Madras High Court
B.Bhavani Wife Of Bhoopathi vs / on 10 June, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
A.S.No.35 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 04.06.2025 Pronounced on : 10.06.2025
Coram::
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Appeal Suit No.35 of 2022
& C.M.P.No.1654 of 2022
1. B.Bhavani wife of Bhoopathi
No.2/123, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Kannabiran,
Kolathur, Chennai – 600 49.
2. M.Indirani wife of Manohar,
No.2/3, Muthumariamman Koil Street,
Kizmanambedhu Village, Chennai – 600 124.
... Appellants/Defendants 1 and 2
/versus/
Chokkammal (deceased) wife of M.Mani
No.10, Raja Agraharam Street,
Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056.
1. M.Subramani Naicker,
Wife of late Munuswamy Naicker,
No.10, Raja Agraharam Street,
Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056. ... Respondents/Plaintiffs
2. The Sub Registrar,
Poonamallee Sub Registrar Office,
Chennai – 600 056. ... Respondent/3rd Defendant
_____________
Page No.1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:05 pm )
A.S.No.35 of 2022
Prayer: Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2021 passed in
O.S.No.108 of 2017 on the file of 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Thiruvallur @ Poonamallee.
For Appellants : Mr.N.V.N.Margandeyan
For Respondents : No appearance – R1
: Mr.R.Siddharth,
Additional Government Pleader, for R2
JUDGMENT
The Appeal Suit is filed by the defendants against the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.108/2017 on the file of II Additional District Judge,
Poonamallee.
2. For sake of convenience, parties are referred as per their status and
ranking mentioned in the original suit.
Mrs.Chokkammal, the first plaintiff had filed the suit against her
nieces Mrs.B.Bhavani and M.Indirani to declare the sale deed executed by her on
04.01.2017 and registered as Document No:12/2017 at SRO, Poonamallee in
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:05 pm )
favour of the defendants as null and void; not binding on her and to be cancelled
for obtaining by misrepresentation, fraud and coercion. Consequentially, to grant
permanent injunction against the defendants from alienating the property. Pending
suit, Mrs.Chokkammal died issueless. Her husband Subramani Naicker was
brought on record as second plaintiff.
3. The suit was filed on the premise that property measuring 1280
sq.ft at Poonamallee village in S.No.115/44 was sold by its owner, Sivabooshanam
to M.Rangaswami and his brother Mani in the year 1982. Later, they both
partitioned the property vide document No:662/1994, dated 14/07/1994. “A”
Schedule property measuring 666 sq.ft was allotted to Rangaswami and “B”
Schedule property measuring 620 sq.ft allotted to the plaintiff Mrs.Chokkammal
W/o.Mani, with right of access through ‘A’ schedule property.
4. Mrs.Chokkammal put up construction on the land allotted to her
and enjoying it absolutely paying necessary tax and revenue charges. While so,
when she fell sick, the defendants who are her sister’s daughters with intention to
misappropriate the property, took Mrs.Chokkammal to her sister’s house and
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:05 pm )
under the guise of arranging to get her old age pension, obtained a sale deed in
their favour by fraud and misrepresentation. No consideration was paid to
Mrs.Chokkammal towards the sale price. Hence, the sale deed obtained by fraud
and misrepresentation it is null and void. During the period of registering the sale
deed, there was demonetisation of Rs.2000/-, Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/. There was
strict restrictions on handling high demonetisation currencies. Therefore, it was
impossible to pay in cash a sum of Rs.19,22,000/- towards sale consideration as
shown in the impugned sale deed. Since no consideration received by
Chokkammal, the sale deed is sham and nominal document. Hence, suit to declare
the said sale deed dated 04.01.2017 as null and void and for permanent injunction
restraining from interfering the peaceful possession.
5. The defendants in the written statement denied all the plaint
averments. According to them, the consideration for the property was paid in
piecemeal. The first defendant along with her mother sold a property owned by
them in Kolatur Village, Thiruporur and used the proceeds and personal savings to
pay the sale consideration for purchase of the property. With an intention to
extract money, the plaintiff gave false complaint to the police against the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:05 pm )
defendant. The sale deed was executed by Chokkammal with full knowledge and
consent, after receiving full consideration. Her husband accompanied her to the
Sub-Registrar Office, for registering the document. Therefore, the suit for
declaration is not maintainable.
6. The trial Court, after considering the pleadings, framed the
following issues:-
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
declaration to declare the Sale Deed dated 04.01.2017
executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendants 1 and 2
is null and void and not binding upon the 1st Plaintiff as it is
only a sham and nominal document and the same is to be
cancelled as obtained by misrepresentation, fraud, coercion,
cheating and deceit?
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the Permanent
Injunction against the the Defendant 1 and 2 as prayed for?
3. To what other reliefs?
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:05 pm )
7. The plaintiff Mrs.Chokkammal, her husband and 3 others graced
the witness box on behalf of the Plaintiff. After cross examination,
Mrs.Chokkammal died. Seven documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7. On
behalf of the defendants, the second defendant, Indirani and one Solomon was
examined. Three documents were marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-3.
8. On considering the evidence and pleadings, the Court below held
that the defendants had not proved the payment of sale consideration. The Court
below doubted the plea of the defendants' on the ground that during
demonetisation period, there were restrictions for use of high-denomination
currencies. Since the defendants had failed to prove the payment of sale
consideration and the sale was by consent, the suit was allowed, declaring the sale
transaction as void.
Point for consideration:-
Whether the trial Court erred in declaring the
duly registered sale deed Ex.A-3 dated 04/01/2017
executed by Mrs.Chokkammal (first plaintiff) in favour
of Bhavani and Indirani (defendants)?
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:05 pm )
9. Ex.A-1 is the partition deed between Rangaswami and
Mrs.Chokkammal in respect of suit property, under which the 'B' schedule
property is allotted to Mrs.Chokkammal. The said 'B' schedule property is sold by
Chokkammal to Bhavani and Indirani under Ex.A-2 on 04.01.2017. About five
months after the registration, the defendants issued legal notice Ex.A-4 dated
17.05.2017 alleging that, after executing sale deed Ex.A-3, Chokkammal on
receipt of entire sale consideration, at the instigation of third parties she is forcing
them to give back the property and threatening to give false complaint to police.
To this notice, the plaintiffs through her lawyer had given a detailed reply Ex.A-5
denying execution of the sale deed with knowledge and consent. Passing of
consideration also strongly denied.
10. Prior to the exchange notices, Mani the husband of the first
plaintiff who was brought on record as the second plaintiff had given a police
complaint Ex.A-7 against the defendants on 03/05/2017, which has probable
prompted the defendants to cause the notice Ex.A-4. On behalf of the defendants
Ex.B-3, a copy of the sale deed dated 10.07.2013 is relied to show their financial
source for paying the sale consideration mentioned in Ex.A-3.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:05 pm )
11. The Learned Counsel for the appellants mainly harp on the Ex.B.3
and the oral evidence of second defendant Indirani (DW-1). However, the
testimony of D.W-1 does not substantiate with documentary evidence to prove she
and her sister had enough source to pay Rs.19,22,000/- for the suit property. The
sale consideration shown in Ex.B-3 sale deed is only Rs.1,69,000/-. The first
defendant Bhavani and one Kanniammal W/o.Subramani are the vendors. This
sale transaction was on 10/07/2013, whereas the sale transaction which is subject
matter of Ex.A-3 and challenged is on 08/07/2017 for a consideration of
Rs.19,22,000/-. Generally, a duly registered document mentioning the passing of
consideration in the recital is presumed to be genuine and true. Whereas in this
case, the vendor who was not keeping good health had come to Court and deposed
that the defendants who are her sister’s daughters had taken her to the Registrar
Office by misrepresentation and got the sale deed executed by deceit. She deposed
that she did not receive any money from the defendants as sale consideration.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:05 pm )
12. The defendants not able to produce evidence for payment of the
sale consideration either on the date of registration or prior to that date. The doubt
about payment gains significance due to the restriction prevailing for withdrawing
money and demonetisation of higher denomination currency. In addition, the
defendants are not able to produce any tangible evidence to show they had source
of income and paid the consideration in part in course of period.
13. Though there is no evidence to prove Mrs.Chokkammal was not
keeping good health and she was taken by the defendant and was coerced to
execute the sale deed. However, for a valid transfer of property, it should be
backed by consideration paid or promised to be paid. In this case, the vendor says
consideration not paid. The buyer contends that it was paid in instalments on
various previous occasion. The party who asserts the existence of a fact is
burdened with the onus to prove the fact asserted.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:05 pm )
14. Neither the testimony of DW-1 and the testimony of DW-2 nor
Ex.B.3 provides evidence for payment of consideration. In such circumstances,
the trial Court has rightly allowed the suit declaring the sale deed Ex.A-3 is null
and void, for want of valid consent by the vendor and for lack of proof regarding
payment of consideration.
15. As a result, the Appeal Suit No.35 of 2022 stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
10.06.2025
Index :Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.
Speaking order/Non Speaking order
bsm
To:-
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur @ Poonamallee.
2. The Sub Registrar, Poonamallee Sub Registrar Office, Chennai – 600 056.
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:05 pm )
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
bsm
Pre-delivery judgment made in
10.06.2025
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 05:40:05 pm )
