Madras High Court
D.Sivakami vs T.Kavitha on 17 November, 2025
2025:MHC:2639
C.S.No.36 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 17.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.S.No.36 of 2019
1.D.Sivakami,
2.M.Vasanthy,
3.K.Shanthi,
4.B.Rajarajeswari,
5.T.Latha.
...Plaintiffs
Vs
1.T.Kavitha
2.T.Thirumeani Viswa, (Minor)
Son of late S.Thangaraj,
--- 2nd defendant minor, aged about 16 years
Represented by his mother and natural
Guardian 1st defendant T.Kavitha
...Defendants
1/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
C.S.No.36 of 2019
Prayer: The Civil Suit has been filed under VII Rule 1 of CPC r/w Order IV
Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, praying for a judgment and decree in
favour of the plaintiffs:
a) for the declaration declaring that the Release Deed dated 24.05.2012
bearing Document No.2972 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Registrar,
Virugambakkam as null and void as the same is vitiated by fraud and not
binding on the plaintiffs in respect of the Item No.1 of the Suit property;
b) for the declaration declaring that the Release Deed dated 24.05.2012
bearing Document No.2973 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Registrar,
Virugambakkam as null and void as the same is vitiated by fraud and not
binding on the plaintiffs in respect of Item No.2 of the Suit property;
c) for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs' 5/6th share in the Item
Nos. 1 and 2 of the Suit property more fully described in the schedule
hereunder;
d) for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to divide the Suit
property by metes and bounds and for allotment of 5/6th share to each of the
plaintiffs in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the Suit property;
e) for the cost of the Suit.
2/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
C.S.No.36 of 2019
For Plaintiffs : Mr.A.Damodaran
For Defendants : Mr. K.F.Manavalan
JUDGMENT
This Suit has been filed by the plaintiffs under VII Rule 1 of CPC r/w
Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, praying for declaration
declaring that the Release Deeds executed between the plaintiffs and their
brother are null and void and for the partition and separate possession of
their 5/6 shares is respect of the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the Suit property and
for cost.
2. The gist of the plaint averments are as follows:
(a) The plaintiffs and one Mr.S.Thangaraj are the daughters and son
of one Mr.S.Selvaraj. The first and second defendants are the wife and son
of the late Mr.S.Thangaraj. The said Mr.S.Selvaraj, the father of the
plaintiffs and father-in-law of the first defendant and grandfather of the
second defendant, had purchased the Suit property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
(b) The said Mr.S.Selvaraj died on 17.05.1990, leaving behind his
wife Mrs.S.Padmavathy, daughters/plaintiffs and son Mr.S.Thangaraj, as
his legal heirs to succeed his estate. The mother of the plaintiffs, namely
Mrs.S.Padmavathy, during her lifetime executed a Will dated 27.04.2010,
bequeathing the Western portion of the Suit property in favour of her son
Mr.S.Thangaraj. The said Mrs.S.Padmavathy died on 20.05.2011. After the
demise of the parents of the plaintiffs, they have been in possession and
enjoyment of the Suit property along with their brother, namely
Mr.S.Thangaraj.
(c) The said Mr.S.Thangaraj died on 23.11.2017, leaving behind his
wife and child, who are the defendants herein, as his legal heirs to succeed
the estate. One point of time, the brother of the plaintiffs and husband of the
first defendant namely Mr.S.Thangaraj, in order to misappropriate the entire
Suit property, approached the plaintiffs to release the share of the plaintiffs
to his favour and the same was refused by the plaintiffs. Despite their
refusal to execute the Release Deed as stated above, the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
Mr.S.Thangaraj voluntarily agreed to release his 1/6th undivided share in
respect of Item No.1 of the Suit property to and in favour of the plaintiffs
under the Release Deed dated 24.05.2012 bearing Document No.2972 of
2012, by receiving a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) from
the plaintiffs. For which also, the plaintiffs did not agree.
(d) Thereafter, the said Mr.S.Thangaraj, fraudulently executed a
Release Deed in respect of the 1/6 share through a Release Deed dated
24.05.2012 bearing Doc.No.2972 of 2012 and under the guise of executing
the Release Deed dated 24.05.2012, the said Mr.S.Thangaraj, obtained
signatures in another document alleged to be Release Deed executed by the
plaintiffs to and in favour of the said Mr.S.Thangaraj, as if the plaintiffs
agreed to release their 5/6th undivided share in Item No.2 of the Suit
property by receiving a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only)
from Mr.S.Thangaraj, for the 5/6th undivided share over the Suit property
through a Release Deed dated 24.05.2012 bearing Document No.2973 of
2012. The said Release Deeds have been registered on 24.05.2012 in the
office of Sub-Registrar Virugambakkam. The above Release Deeds were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
obtained by the deceased Mr.S.Thangaraj by playing fraud, undue influence
and coercion on the plaintiffs.
(e) Since the said Mr.S.Thangaraj, died on 23.11.2017, leaving
behind the defendants as his legal heirs, the plaintiffs approached the first
defendant/wife of Mr.S.Thangaraj for division of the Suit property in equal
shares, but the first defendant, relying upon the Release Deed dated
24.05.2012 registered as Document No.2973 of 2012, refused to partition
over the Suit property.
(f) In the month of June 2018, the plaintiffs came to know about the
fraudulent transactions of the Release Deeds in favour of the deceased
husband of the first defendant, Mr.S.Thangaraj. The plaintiffs have no
knowledge about the Release Deeds and the Suit property is not a
self-acquired property of the deceased Mr.S.Thangaraj and it is an ancestral
property purchased by the father of the plaintiffs late Mr.S.Selvaraj.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
(g) The said S.Thangaraj, had played a fraud on the plaintiffs in
getting the Release Deed dated 24.05.2012 (Doc.No.2973 of 2012)
executed in his favour and the Release Deed has been obtained by playing
coercion, fraud and force against the plaintiffs and against the willingness
of the plaintiffs, the Release Deed was obtained. The defendants have no
manner of right to claim absolute ownership of the Suit property. Therefore,
the plaintiffs are each entitled to 1/6 share over the Suit property and the
defendants are jointly entitled to 1/6 share over the Suit Property.
3. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the
defendants are as follows:
(a) The Suit is barred by limitation and does not disclose any cause of
action and the Suit is an abuse of process of law and therefore, the Suit is
liable to be dismissed in limine. The plaintiffs admittedly executed a
Release Deed dated 24.05.2012 (Doc.No.2973 of 2012 on the file of the
SRO, Virugambakkam) in favour of late S.Thangaraj. The Suit is filed in
the year 2019. Therefore, the Suit is barred by limitation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
(b) The two Release Deeds have been challenged on the ground of
alleged 'fraud,' and there are no sufficient pleadings and no any materials
and particulars of alleged 'fraud', without any consequential relief of
declaration of title, the Suit is not maintainable. The plaintiffs, being the
parties to the documents, without payment of the appropriate Court fee,
they filed this Suit. In fact, the Suit property originally belonged to the late
Mr.S.Selvaraj through a Sale Deed dated 12.04.1959 and the said
Mr.S.Selvaraj died, leaving behind his wife, daughters and son on
17.05.1990. The wife of Mr.S.Selvaraj, died on 20.05.2011.
(c) The said Mr.S.Thangaraj, who is the brother of the plaintiffs and
husband of the first defendant and father of the second defendant, executed
a Release Deed dated 24.05.2012 registered as Doc.No.2972 of 2012 in
favour of the plaintiffs in respect of Item No.1 of the Suit property and
similarly, the plaintiffs have executed a Release Deed dated 24.05.2012
registered as Doc.No.2973 of 2012 in respect of their shares in favour of
the said Mr.S.Thangaraj. Both the documents are registered documents.
The plaintiffs have knowledge of the execution of the two Release Deeds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
Those Release Deeds have been executed and consideration also passed
through those Deeds. During the lifetime of Mr.S.Thangaraj, the plaintiffs
have not taken any steps. The said Mr.S.Thangaraj, died on 23.11.2017.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs attempted to grab the properties of Mr.S.Thangaraj
and filed this Suit.
(d) The allegations in the plaint regarding the execution of the Will
by the second defendant's grandmother, Mrs.S.Padmavathy, are denied. To
the knowledge of the defendants, there is no such Will at all. After the
Release Deeds dated 24.05.2012 (Doc.Nos.2972 and 2973 of 2012), the
husband of the first defendant along with the second defendant, had been in
possession and enjoyment of the 2nd item of the Suit property and after the
demise of the first defendant's husband, Mr.S.Thangaraj, the first and
second defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 2 nd item
of the Suit property. The alleged fraud, undue influence, and coercion
pleaded by the plaintiffs are denied and they have not been supported by
any evidence. Therefore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
4. Based on the above-said pleadings, after hearing both sides and
perusing the records, this Court framed the following issues:
“1.Whether the Release Deed dated 24.05.2012
bearing Doc.No.2972 of 2012 is lawful & valid?
2. Whether the Release Deed dated 24.05.2012
bearing Doc.No.2973 of 2012 is lawful & valid?
3. Whether the suit, as filed, seeking the relief of
declaration simpliciter in respect of the two Release
Deeds dated 24.05.2012 without seeking (and omitting)
the consequential relief of declaration of the alleged
specific individual share of ownership of each plaintiff
in the suit schedule properties is maintainable in law?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition
and separate possession of the plaintiffs' 5/6th share?
5. Whether the plaintiffs (when suing for the relief
in respect of ownership of specific individual share of
the suit schedule properties) ought to have valued the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
suit schedule properties at its true and actual market
value? If yes, is the suit maintainable without payment
of the true and correct court fees for the reliefs claimed
in the suit?
6. Whether the suit is barred by the law of
limitation in respect of the reliefs claimed?
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the costs
of the suit?
8. To what other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled
for?
5. For effective and better adjudication of the Suit, the issues were
re-casted as follows:
1.Whether the Release Deed executed by the plaintiffs
dated 24.05.2012 in document No.2973 of 2012 was obtained
by playing fraud on the plaintiffs by their brother
Mr.S.Thangaraj?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
2. Whether the Suit is maintainable with seeking relief
of declaration simpliciter in respect of the two Release Deeds
without seeking the relief of declaration of their ownership of
the Suit property?
3. Whether the Suit is barred by limitation?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declare the
Release Deed dated 24.05.2012 bearing Document No.2972
of 2012 in respect of the first item of the suit property
executed by one Mr.S.Thangaraj, in favour of the plaintiffs as
null and void?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declare the
Release Deed dated 24.05.2012 bearing Document No.2973
of 2012 in respect of the second item of the suit property
executed by the plaintiffs in favour of Mr.S.Thangaraj, as null
and void?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the partition of
their 5/6 share over the items 1 and 2 of the Suit property?
7. To what other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled for?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
6. Though this Court has re-casted the issues at the stage of
Judgment, this Court has not framed any additional issues and already
framed issues have been re-casted now. Therefore, no further evidence is
required in respect of the re-casted issues. Hence, this Court is inclined to
pass Judgment based on the available documents and evidences.
7. In order to prove the case of the parties, on the side of the
plaintiffs, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked.
On the side of the defendants, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.
8 (a). Mr.A.Damodaran, the learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs would submit that the plaintiffs are the daughters of the late
Mr.S.Selvaraj, who was the original owner of the Suit property and he died
intestate on 17.05.1990, leaving behind his wife, daughters/the plaintiffs
and son Mr.S.Thangaraj. The said Mr.S.Thangaraj died intestate on
23.11.2017. The defendants 1 and 2 are legal heirs of the said
Mr.Thangaraj.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
(b) After the demise of Mr.S.Selvaraj, father of the plaintiffs,
Mr.S.Padmavathy, mother of the plaintiffs, executed a Will dated
27.04.2010 in favour of her son, Mr.S.Thangaraj, in respect of her 1/7
share. The mother of the plaintiffs died on 20.05.2011. The said Will was
not probated till the demise of the said Mr.S.Thangaraj. The plaintiffs and
their brother the late Mr.S.Thangaraj, were in joint possession and
enjoyment of the Suit property, the rental income was being shared among
them. The said Mr.S.Thangaraj incurred debts. To tide over the debts, he
induced the plaintiffs to sign two Release Deeds dated 24.05.2012 under
the pretext of obtaining a Bank loan, assuring that the rights would not be
affected.
(c) The said Release Deeds were never acted upon, and the original
documents were retained with the plaintiffs. The rental income continued to
be shared even after 2012. The plaintiffs came to know in the month of June
2018 that the Release Deeds were fraudulently obtained coercively without
consideration. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed this Suit for partition over
their 5/6 share over the Suit items of the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
(d) No consideration was passed through the said Release Deeds.
Mere registration does not validate a fraudulent document and the fraud
vitiates entire transactions. The plaintiffs are in joint possession and the
rental income was also shared. The plaintiffs came to knowledge about
the fraudulent execution of the Deeds only in the month of June 2018.
Therefore, the Suit is filed within the limitation period. The defendants are
jointly entitled to 5/6th share over the entire Suit properties.
(e) In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, they examined P.W.1
and P.W.2 and also marked eight documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The evidence
of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the documents Exs.P1 to P8 clearly proved the
case of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are entitled to 5/6 share over the Suit
properties. Therefore the Suit is liable to be decreed.
9(a). Mr.K.F.Manavalan, the learned counsel appearing for the
defendants, would submit that the plaintiffs are sought for the relief of the
declaration of two Release Deeds dated 24.05.2012, alleging that they are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
vitiated by fraud, thereby, to declare them as null and void and also prayed
for the partition.
(b) The two registered Release Deeds were duly registered and acted
upon. The plaintiffs admittedly have knowledge of the execution of the two
Deeds from the date of the execution i.e., on 24.05.2012 and they failed to
take any action till the demise of the plaintiffs' brother, namely
Mr.S.Thangaraj, for more than seven years and six months. The same was
also admitted by P.W.1 during her cross-examination.
(c) After the demise of the plaintiffs' brother, they attempted to attack
the defendants and thereby, they filed the present Suit. Therefore, the Suit is
barred by limitation. There are no sufficient pleadings in respect of the
alleged “fraud,” “coercion” and “undue influence” and there is no evidence
adduced by the plaintiffs to prove the alleged “fraud,” “coercion,” and
“undue influence.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
(d) As per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Suit ought to
have been filed within three years from the date of execution of the Release
Deed, but the Suit has been filed after seven years and six months. The
plaintiffs, being the party to the documents, cannot say that they came to
knowledge about the alleged fraudulent Deeds in the month of June 2018.
The plea of fraud ought to be pleaded with the specificity and particularity
and to be proved with sufficient evidence. The mere repetition of words,
“fraud” without setting out the material particulars of the alleged fraud
would not pass the threshold test to even maintain a Suit on the alleged
ground of fraud. Therefore, there is no cause of action for this Suit. The
plaintiffs have to pay the Court fee for the value of the property mentioned
in the documents, but they have not paid proper Court fee.
(e) In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, they only examined
P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. There are no any pleadings and
the evidence to prove the alleged fraud. On the side of the defendants, no
oral or documentary evidence was adduced. However, the plaintiffs filed
the Suit for declaration and for partition. They have to prove their case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
independently with sufficient documents, but they failed to prove their case.
Therefore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed.
10. This Court heard both sides and perused the records.
11. Issue No.1
1.Whether the Release Deed executed by the plaintiffs
dated 24.05.2012 in document No.2973 of 2012 was obtained
by playing fraud on the plaintiffs by their brother
Mr.S.Thangaraj?
(a) In this case, there is no dispute that the Suit property originally
belonged to one Mr.S.Selvaraj, who is the father of the plaintiffs and
father-in-law of the first defendant and grandfather of the second defendant,
through a Sale Deed dated 12.04.1959, and the said Mr.S.Selvaraj died
intestate, leaving behind his wife Mrs.S.Padmavathy, daughters/plaintiffs
and son Mr.S.Thangaraj, as his legal heirs to succeed his estate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
(b) The said Mrs.S.Padmavathy, the mother of the plaintiffs, also
died on 20.05.2011. It is also an admitted fact that the plaintiffs executed a
Release Deed dated 24.05.2012 (Doc.No.2973 of 2012) in favour of their
brother, namely Mr.Thangaraj, in respect of the Item No.2 of the Suit
property. Similarly, the said Mr.S.Thangaraj also executed a Release Deed
dated 24.05.2012 (Doc.No.2972 of 2012) in favour of the plaintiffs in
respect of the Item No.1 of the Suit property.
(c) The plaintiffs have filed this Suit alleging that they have no
knowledge about the execution of the Release Deeds. They stated that the
said Mr.S.Thangaraj, with a motive to misappropriate the entire property
said to have executed a Release Deed in respect of his 1/6 share to the
plaintiffs and under the said guise of executing the Release Deed, he
obtained signatures in another document alleged to be the Release Deed
executed by the plaintiffs to in favour of Mr.S.Thangaraj, as if the plaintiffs
agreed to release their 5/6 undivided share in Item No.2 of the Suit property
by receiving a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
Mr.S.Thangaraj, and registered a Release Deed bearing Doc.No.2973 of
2012 dated 24.05.2012 by playing “fraud”, “undue influence” and
“coercion.” Therefore, the execution of the Deeds was categorically
admitted by the plaintiffs. While so, the plaintiffs have to prove the alleged
“fraud” “undue influence” and “coercion” played by the said
Mr.S.Thangaraj.
(d) In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, they examined P.W.1
and P.W.2. During the cross-examination, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have
categorically admitted their signatures found in the Release Deed
documents and they also admitted the recitals in respect of the receipt of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as consideration and they have not
denied the receipt of consideration. When a specific question was put by
the defendants' counsel to P.W.1 that could you please point out from the
record any document to show that you had objected to or protested the
execution of Ex.P7 as fraudulent to any competent authority in law? No,
and also she admitted that during the lifetime of her brother
Mr.S.Thangaraj, the plaintiffs have not taken any steps and they have not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
stated anything about the allegation of fraud in the execution of Exs.P6 and
P7/Release Deeds.
(e) Similarly, P.W.2 also in her cross-examination admitted her
signatures found in the Release Deeds and the plaintiffs have not taken any
steps till the demise of their brother Mr.S.Thangaraj. The said Deeds were
executed on 24.05.2012 and the Suit has been filed in the year 2019. The
brother of the plaintiffs died in the year 23.11.2017. Till the demise of the
plaintiffs' brother, they had not taken any steps. Therefore, the conduct of
the plaintiffs for not taking steps till the demise of their brother creates
serious doubt over the genuinity of the claim of the plaintiffs. Moreover,
the plaintiffs admitted that the said Mr.S.Thangaraj under the guise of
executing the Release Deed in favour of the plaintiffs obtained signatures
of the plaintiffs and got the Release Deed from the plaintiffs. While so, it is
the duty of the plaintiffs to prove the said contention, but no sufficient
evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. The Release Deeds are registered
documents and it is the presumption that the said Deeds were executed in
accordance with law unless the contrary is proved. But in this case, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
plaintiffs failed to prove the fraud played by Mr.S.Thangaraj, in obtaining
the Release Deeds. Therefore, the allegation by the plaintiffs that the Deeds
were obtained by playing “fraud” has not been established. When the
plaintiffs admitted the execution of the Deeds and the signatures found in
the documents, they have to prove the alleged “fraud” or “undue influence”
or “coercion” played by the said Mr.S.Thangaraj, but there are no any
sufficient pleadings or evidence to prove the alleged “fraud”, “coercion” or
“undue influence”. Therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the
Release Deed bearing Doc.No.2973 of 2012 was obtained by playing fraud.
Thus, the Issue No.1 is answered.
12. Issue No.2
2. Whether the Suit is maintainable with seeking relief of
declaration simpliciter in respect of the two Release Deeds
without seeking the relief of declaration of their ownership of
the Suit property?
(a) The plaintiffs have filed the Suit for declaration to declare the
Release Deeds are null and void and also prayed for partition. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
defendants have taken a plea that in the Suit for declaration simpliciter in
respect of the two Release Deeds alone is not sufficient and they ought to
have sought for relief of declaration in respect of the properties covered
under the Release Deeds. In this context, the prayer is in respect of the
Release Deeds are to declare the said Release Deeds as null and void and
not binding upon the plaintiffs.
(b) The plaintiffs have also prayed for relief of the partition. Since
there is a relief sought for partition over the properties covered under the
Release Deeds, there is no need of separate prayer for declaration of the
title of the properties. Since in the partition Suit, the Court has to decide the
shares of the parties, a specific prayer for declaration is not required. Thus,
the Issue No.2 is answered.
3. Whether the Suit is barred by limitation?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
(a) The plaintiffs have filed the Suit for declaration declaring that the
Release Deeds dated 24.05.2012 in Document Nos.2972 and 2973 of 2012
executed between the plaintiffs and their brother Mr.S.Thangaraj, are null
and void. The plaintiffs are parties to the documents and they only executed
the Deeds. In the plaint itself, they pleaded that already the said
Mr.S.Thangaraj, in order to misappropriate the Suit property, approached
the plaintiffs to release their share in respect of the Item No.2 of the Suit
property. He also ready to release his share in favour of the plaintiffs in
respect of the Item No.1 of the Suit property but they refused for that. While
so, how without knowledge they executed the Release Deeds has to be
explained and the plaintiffs are all well educated and they know very well
about the consequence of the Deeds executed by them. The said Deeds were
registered before the concerned authorities. Therefore, they cannot deny
that they have not executed the Deeds and they have no knowledge about
the date of the execution of the Release Deeds.
(b) In the plaint, the plaintiffs pleaded that they only came to
knowledge about the said Deeds in the month of June 2018. Once the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
plaintiffs executed Release Deeds and the same were registered before the
concerned authorities, it is the presumption that the Deeds were duly
executed unless the contrary is proved. In order to prove the contrary, there
is no sufficient evidence adduced by the plaintiffs.
(c) Moreover, the first and second plaintiffs/P.W.1 and P.W.2 have
admitted the receipt of consideration during their cross-examination and
they have not denied the recitals found in the alleged Release Deeds. The
said Release Deeds were marked as Exs.P6 and P7 and the recitals of the
Deeds show that the consideration was passed. Therefore, the said
execution of the Release Deeds known to the plaintiffs on the date of
execution itself.
(d) It is well-settled law that as far as the declaration of Deeds is
concerned, the Suit has to be filed within three years from the date of
execution in respect of parties to the documents for others from the date of
knowledge. The plaintiffs being the party to the document cannot say that
they have no knowledge about the Release Deeds and their contentions that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
they came to knowledge only later, cannot be accepted. Therefore,
admittedly, the Suit is not within three years and after seven years and six
months, the Suit has been filed. The date of Release Deeds is 24.05.2012
and the year of Suit is 2019. Therefore, the Suit is barred by limitation in
respect of the Release Deeds bearing Doc.Nos.2972 and 2973 of 2012 dated
24.05.2012. Thus the Issue No.3 is answered.
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declare the
Release Deed dated 24.05.2012 bearing Document No.2972
of 2012 in respect of the first item of the suit property
executed by one Mr.S.Thangaraj, in favour of the plaintiffs as
null and void?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declare the
Release Deed dated 24.05.2012 bearing Document No.2973
of 2012 in respect of the second item of the suit property
executed by the plaintiffs in favour of Mr.S.Thangaraj, as null
and void?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
(a) The plaintiffs have sought for the relief of a declaration in respect
of the document No.2973 of 2012 dated 24.05.2012 executed by them in
favour of their brother Mr.S.Thangaraj as null and void and another Release
Deed in respect of Doc.No.2972 of 2012 dated 24.05.2012 executed by the
plaintiffs' brother Mr.S.Thangaraj in favour of the plaintiffs as null and
void.
(b) According to the plaintiffs, they came to knowledge about the
Release Deeds in the month of June 2018. This Court in the previous issue
decided that once the document was registered and the plaintiffs, being
well-educated persons after having knowledge about the execution of the
Deeds could not say that they came to knowledge about the Deeds in the
month of June 2018. Therefore, the relief in respect of the declaration, the
plaintiffs ought to have filed the Suit within three years from the date of
execution of the Release Deeds, but they have not filed the Suit within three
years. The suit has been filed after seven years and six months. Therefore,
the plaintiffs are not entitled to relief of declaration since the claim is barred
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
by limitation. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of
declaration in respect of the document Nos.2972 and 2973 of 2012. Thus
the Issue Nos.4 and 5 are answered.
15. Issue No.6
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the partition of
their 5/6 share over the items 1 and 2 of the Suit property?
(a) The plaintiffs have filed the Suit for the relief of declaration in
respect of the Release Deeds dated 24.05.2012 and also prayed for the relief
of partition over their 5/6 share over the Suit property. According to the
plaintiffs, originally the Suit property belonged to their father
Mr.S.Selvaraj. Their father died intestate, leaving behind his wife,
daughters/the plaintiffs and son Mr.S.Thangaraj. The said Mr.S.Thangaraj,
died, leaving behind the defendants 1 and 2 as his legal heirs.
(b) During the lifetime of Mr.S.Thangaraj, the plaintiffs executed a
Release Deed dated 24.05.2012 (Doc.No.2973 of 2012) by releasing their
5/6 share in favour of Mr.S.Thangaraj, in respect of the Item No.2 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
Suit property. Similarly, the said Mr.S.Thangaraj, had executed a Release
Deed dated 24.05.2012 (Doc.No.2972 of 2012) by releasing his 1/6 share in
favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the Item No.1 of the Suit property.
(c) The plaintiffs have challenged the said Release Deeds as they
were obtained by playing “fraud” by the said Mr.S.Thangaraj. This Court in
the previous issues decided that the plaintiffs failed to prove the said
“fraud” played by the said Mr.S.Thangaraj. The plaintiffs are not entitled to
the relief of declaration in respect of those Release Deeds as null and void
and also the claim in respect of declaration is barred by limitation.
Therefore, as per the above-said Release Deeds, in the first item of the Suit
property, the said Mr.S.Thangaraj released his 1/6th share and thereby, the
plaintiffs are jointly entitled to the entire property of the first item. As far as
the second item of the Suit Property is concerned, the plaintiffs executed a
Release Deed dated 24.05.2012 bearing Doc.No.2973 of 2012 by releasing
their 5/6 share to their brother, namely Mr.S.Thangaraj and thereby, the said
Mr.S.Thangaraj, alone is the absolute owner of the property of the second
item. After the demise of Mr.S.Thangaraj the said property belongs to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no any right over the
second item of the Suit property.
(d) It is not the case of the plaintiffs that they are entitled to share
over the entire property of the first item of the property and their claim is
they are entitled to 5/6 share over the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the Suit
properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to partition over the
second item of the Suit property. As far as the first item is concerned, they
are the owners of the property and there is no dispute to divide that property
between the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief
for the partition over the Suit property.
16. Issue No.7
7. To what other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled for?
This Court in the previous issues, after an elaborate decision, decided that
the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of declaration in respect of the
Release Deeds dated 24.05.2012 and the Suit is barred by limitation and the
plaintiffs are not entitled to partition over the Suit property. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief in this Suit. Hence, the Suit is liable
to be dismissed.
17. In the result, the Suit is dismissed. Considering the relationship
between the parties and the nature of the Suit, there is no order as to cost.
17.11.2025
dk
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
P.DHANABAL,J.
dk
17.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 08:47:30 pm )
