Madras High Court
Smt.M.Jagadeeswari vs K.Manoharan on 20 April, 2026
AS No. 540 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON
02.03.2026 20.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
AS No. 540 of 2017
and CMP.No.17905 of 2017
1. Smt.M.Jagadeeswari
W/o Late R.Mannappan
2. Dhana Vasuki Alias Poongodi
D/o Late R.Mannappan
3. M.Karthikeyan
S/o Late R.Mannappan
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. K.Manoharan
S/o Kuppusamy
2. Devandran
3. Punniakodi
4. Babu
5. Bhaskar
6. Raju
7. Shankar
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER:- First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code r/w
Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgement and
decree dated 29/07/2016 made in OS.No.12039/2010, on the file of the
Additional Judge - IV, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellant(s): Mr. R. Thiagarajan
For Respondent(s): Ms.R.Gayatri for R1
__________
Page1 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
for M/s.P.B.Ramanujam Associates
RR2 to 7 – Given up
vide Court order dated 11.12.2017
-------------
JUDGMENT
The Appeal has been filed challenging the judgement and decree dated
29/07/2016 made in OS.No.12039/2010, on the file of the Additional Judge –
IV, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The appellants, being the wife and children of late R. Mannappan,
instituted a suit seeking a declaration that the registered Sale Deed dated
27.03.2002 executed by Mannappan in favour of the first respondent in respect
of the suit property is null and void and not binding upon them. Consequential
reliefs of recovery of possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction were
also sought. The appellants traced the title of the property to a settlement deed
dated 01.09.1945 executed by K. Thiruvenkada Mudaliar, under which life
interest and remainder rights were created. Pursuant to the said settlement, the
property devolved through successive holders and ultimately vested with K.T.
Ramachandran and thereafter with his son, R. Mannappan. Upon Mannappan’s
death on 01.08.2002, the appellants claimed succession as his legal heirs.
3. The appellants pleaded that during his lifetime Mannappan had raised
loans by creating mortgages over the property. These mortgages were
__________
Page2 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
subsequently discharged. A simple mortgage in favour of the first respondent
for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, executed subsequent to the mortgage with Vellala
Co-operative Bank Ltd., was also stated to have been discharged on 27.03.2002.
According to the appellants, immediately after such discharge the impugned
Sale Deed dated 27.03.2002 came to be executed in favour of the first
respondent for a stated consideration of Rs.14,50,000/-.
4. The appellants contended that the alleged consideration was never
actually paid and that the recital acknowledging receipt of consideration was
sham and nominal. It was further alleged that Mannappan was a chronic
alcoholic and as a reason was never in a sound state of mind even during the
time of execution of the document. The first respondent, taking advantage of the
close relationship and alleged dominance over Mannappan, is said to have
obtained the Sale Deed through fraud and misrepresentation. The appellants
also claimed that possession was never delivered pursuant to the sale and that
they continued to occupy the premises until they were forcibly dispossessed on
16.08.2002. On these grounds, cancellation of the Sale Deed and recovery of
possession were sought.
5. The first respondent denied the allegations and contended that the
plaint was based on vague and unsupported claims aimed at invalidating a
lawful transaction. According to the respondent, the property was purchased
__________
Page3 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
under a duly executed and registered Sale Deed dated 27.03.2002 for a valid
consideration of Rs.14,50,000/-. The document was executed before the
competent Sub-Registrar and contained a clear recital acknowledging receipt of
the entire sale consideration.
6. It was also stated that Mannappan was facing significant financial
liabilities and was compelled to sell the property to discharge his debts. In this
connection, an advertisement offering the property for sale was published in the
Tamil daily “Dinamalar” on 21.02.2002. Despite such attempts to find a
purchaser, no immediate buyer came forward. It was further pleaded that the
property was subject to several mortgage liabilities prior to the sale. Among
them was a simple mortgage in favour of the first respondent, well as an earlier
mortgage with the Vellala Co-operative Bank Ltd. These mortgage debts were
discharged on the very date of execution of the Sale Deed, thereby ensuring that
the property was conveyed free from encumbrances. According to the
respondent, these circumstances clearly demonstrate that the sale was prompted
by financial necessity and not by any fraudulent design.
7. The respondent also claimed that the appellants had executed consent
affidavits and letters of no objection prior to the sale, thereby indicating their
knowledge and approval of the proposed transaction. It was further stated that
the first respondent was closely related to Mannappan, his wife being the
__________
Page4 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
younger sister of the deceased, and that all family members were aware of the
debts and the attempts to sell the property.
8.The allegations that Mannappan was incapable of understanding the
transaction due to alcoholism were specifically denied. The respondent asserted
that Mannappan executed the Sale Deed voluntarily and in a sound state of
mind. The allegation of forcible dispossession on 16.08.2002 was also denied,
the respondent stating that Mannappan and his family were allowed to continue
residing in the property even after the sale was out of familial consideration.
The respondent further contended that Mannappan was the absolute owner of
the property and had full power of alienation during his lifetime. Upon
execution of the Sale Deed, the property ceased to form part of his estate and no
right of succession could arise in favour of the appellants.
9. On the aforesaid pleadings the following issues were framed:
1) Whether the Sale Deed dated 27.03.2002 executed by late R.
Mannappan in favour of the first defendant is vitiated by fraud,
undue influence or misrepresentation?
2) Whether the Sale Deed dated 27.03.2002 is supported by
valid consideration?
3) Whether late R. Mannappan was competent to execute the
Sale Deed in respect of the suit property?
__________
Page5 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration, recovery of
possession and mesne profits as prayed for?
5) To what other reliefs are the parties entitled?
10. On the Plaintiffs’ side, PW1 was examined as the sole witness and
documents Ex. A1 to Ex. A13 were marked. On the Defendants’ side, DW1 was
examined and documents Ex. B1 to Ex. B9 were marked
11. After considering all the pleadings, oral & documentary evidence, the
Trial Court held that the burden of proving fraud or undue influence rested
entirely on the Plaintiffs. The Court observed that such allegations require strict
proof. Since the Plaintiffs failed to produce medical records or other
independent evidence showing that Mannappan lacked capacity to execute the
document, the plea of incapacity was rejected. On the second issue, the Court
relying upon the recital contained in the registered Sale Deed marked as Ex. A9,
which acknowledged receipt of consideration, in the absence of convincing
evidence disproving payment, the Court concluded that the sale was supported
by valid consideration. On the third issue, the Court found that Mannappan was
the absolute owner of the property and possessed full authority to alienate it
during his lifetime. Consequently, the execution of the Sale Deed was held to be
legally valid. In view of these findings, the Court held that the plaintiffs were
not entitled to the relief of declaration or recovery of possession and dismissed
__________
Page6 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
the suit in its entirety, against which the present Appeal Suit.
12. Heard Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the appellants and
Ms.R.Gayatri, learned counsel appearing for M/s. P.B.Ramanujam Associates,
on behalf of the first respondent.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that they are the
rightful owners and successors to the suit schedule property. He contended that
the entire case of the respondents hinges on the alleged fabricated Sale Deed
dated 27.03.2002 registered as Document No.937 of 2002 on the file of the Sub-
Registrar, Royapuram. The appellants have specifically challenged that
document as having been brought into existence by fraud, misrepresentation and
undue influence. According to him, the first respondent, being the brother-in-
law of late R. Mannappan, occupied a position of trust and confidence and used
his fiduciary relationship to obtain the impugned sale deed under suspicious
circumstances when the executant was in a vulnerable state of mind and under
severe financial distress.
14. It was pointed out by him that the recitals in the sale deed themselves
disclose serious inconsistencies. Though the document claimed payment of
Rs.14,50,000/- as sale consideration, divided over several dates, no details of
the same was indicated. No documentary proof such as receipts, bank entries,
__________
Page7 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
vouchers or account statements were produced to substantiate the same. The
absence of proof of payment, coupled with the highly inadequate value of
consideration in respect of the schedule property, rendered the transaction
intrinsically doubtful.
15. He would further contend that the burden of proving the genuineness
of such a transaction lies squarely upon the beneficiary especially where the
executant’s capacity/state of mind is questioned and the transaction is
challenged as vitiated by fraud. According to him, the first respondent having
failed to enter the witness box, invites an adverse inference under Section
114(g) of the Evidence Act. His wife who was examined as DW1, whose
testimony that her husband was engaged in money-lending activities and that
she managed his accounts suggested that the alleged sale was, in truth, a money
transaction disguised as conveyance.
16. It was further submitted that the so-called consent letters of the
appellant, marked as Ex. B1, were not proved in accordance with law,
unsupported by admissible evidence, and appear to be fabricated for the
litigation. Mere marking of a document, it was argued, does not amount to proof
of its contents under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Reliance
was placed on the decision in the case of N. Krishna Gowda Vs T. Rangan
reported in (2013) 6 MLJ 175, where it was held that production or marking of
__________
Page8 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
a document alone is insufficient unless the same is properly proved by
admissible evidence.
17. The appellants further submitted that late R. Mannappan died on
01.08.2002, scarcely four months after the alleged execution of the sale deed.
Immediately after his death and funeral, the respondents attempted to dispossess
the appellants from the property on 16.08.2002, which exposes the ulterior
motive behind the purported transaction.
18. The learned counsel for the appellants also emphasized that their
possession and enjoyment of the property were established through the oral
evidence of PW1 and PW2, and that the Trial Court failed to properly
appreciate or assign due weight to these testimonies. The alleged voluntariness
of the transaction, the adequacy of consideration, and the payment thereof
remained wholly unproved. The learned counsel for the appellants contended
that the impugned Sale Deed dated 27.03.2002 was a sham and nominal
document created to deprive the appellants of their lawful inheritance.
19. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
appellants had miserably failed to discharge the burden of proving fraud, undue
influence or misrepresentation. The Sale Deed dated 27.03.2002, executed by,
late R. Mannappan, was duly registered before the competent Sub-Registrar
__________
Page9 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
after satisfaction of legal formalities, and contained an explicit acknowledgment
of receipt of Rs.14,50,000/-. In law, such recital carries evidentiary presumption
of truth unless disproved by cogent evidence. Hence the onus is on the
appellants/ plaintiffs that the same was a sham and nominal document.
20. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that late
Mannappan was heavily indebted and under compelling necessity to discharge
multiple mortgages. Efforts had been made to sell the property through public
notice in Dinamalar newspaper dated 21.02.2002, well before the sale. Since no
adequate purchaser came forward, the first respondent, being related to the
family, agreed to purchase the property to enable repayment of debts. This
clearly established the bona fide nature of the sale. The discharge of earlier
mortgage debts and other encumbrances on the same date further corroborated
the genuineness of the transaction.
21. It was further contended that the appellants were fully aware of the
sale proposal. Consent letters and no-objection affidavits had been obtained in
2001 and again before the execution of the deed. The assertion that they were
ignorant of the sale was therefore false. The respondents emphasized that the
deceased was in full possession of his faculties, visited the Sub-Registrar’s
office personally, admitted the execution and the consideration. The appellant’s
allegations on mental incapacity due to alcoholism were unsupported by
__________
Page10 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
medical or expert evidence. They did not examine any witness or produced
contemporaneous proof to rebut the statutory presumptions attached to a
registered document.
22. The argument regarding non-production of the first respondent as a
witness was refuted by relying on Section 120 of the Evidence Act, which
renders a spouse to be a competent witness in civil proceedings. DW1 is the
wife of the first respondent and sister of the deceased who has testified the
background of the sale, the existence and discharge of mortgage debts,
publication of advertisement, and the voluntary nature of the transaction.
23. She further pointed out that the appellant’s allegation of forcible
dispossession on 16.08.2002 was wholly unsubstantiated. No police complaint
or contemporaneous correspondence supported such a claim. On the contrary,
until his death, late Mannappan and his family were permitted to reside in the
premises on compassionate grounds, and possession was peacefully taken
thereafter.
24. It was also emphasized by the learned counsel of the respondents that
there was nearly a two-year delay before the institution of the suit, which
undermined the appellant’s credibility and strengthened the inference that the
suit was an afterthought intended to disturb a concluded sale.
__________
Page11 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
25. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respective parties & perused the materials available on record, on which basis
the following issues arise for the consideration: –
a) Issue No.1 – Whether the evidence of DW1, being the wife of
the first respondent, can be relied upon to establish the
genuineness of the transaction and surrounding circumstances?
b) Issue No.2 – Whether the Sale Deed dated 27.03.2002 is
vitiated by fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation on account
of an alleged fiduciary relationship between Mannappan and the
first respondent, and whether the said transaction is supported by
valid consideration?
c) Issue No.3 – Whether the documentary evidence on record,
including Ex. A9, Ex. B7 and Ex. B9, corroborates the case of the
respondent regarding the genuineness and validity of the
transaction?
26. On Issue 1, The Appellants had contended that the testimony of DW1
is liable to be discarded on the ground that she is an interested witness, being
the spouse of the first respondent. It is submitted that her evidence lacks
independence and is inherently biased in favour of the respondent. According to
the appellants, such testimony cannot be safely relied upon to prove material
aspects such as the financial condition of Mannappan, the circumstances leading
__________
Page12 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
to the sale, and the alleged discharge of mortgage liabilities.
27. The respondent had contended that the mere fact that a witness is
related to a party does not render her evidence inadmissible or unreliable. DW1,
who was examined on behalf of the defence, was the wife of the first
respondent. Her testimony was admissible under Section 120 of the Indian
Evidence Act, which recognises the competence of a spouse to testify in civil
proceedings. In her evidence, DW1 described the financial difficulties faced by
Mannappan, the existence of mortgage liabilities and the steps taken to sell the
property, including publication of the advertisement in “Dinamalar”. She also
spoke about the execution of the registered Sale Deed dated 27.03.2002 marked
as Ex. A 9.
28. It is contended that DW1 has spoken consistently with regard to the
financial distress of Mannappan, the issuance of the public advertisement in
“Dinamalar,” and the discharge of mortgage encumbrances prior to the
execution of the Sale Deed. The cross-examination of DW1 did not reveal any
material contradiction regarding the execution or validity of Ex. A 9. Her cross-
examination has not elicited any materials to her not being aware of the facts
and circumstances of the case nor there was contradiction or inconsistency so as
to discredit her testimony. The testimony of DW1 finds corroboration from the
documentary evidence on record, particularly Ex. A9, Ex. B7, and Ex. B9,
__________
Page13 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
which collectively support the case of the respondent. Hence this issue is
answered against the appellants sustaining the evidence of DW1.
29. On Issue 2 & 3, The learned counsel for the appellants contended that
the first respondent occupied a position of dominance and confidence over late
Mannappan by virtue of a close fiduciary relationship, as the respondent’s wife
was the younger sister of the deceased. It was argued by the counsel of
appellants that such proximity created a fiduciary relationship, enabling the
respondent to wield undue influence over Mannappan. The appellants further
submit that Mannappan was a habitual alcoholic and was not in a sound and
disposing state of mind to comprehend the nature and consequences of the
transaction. On this basis, it is alleged that the Sale Deed dated 27.03.2002 is
not a genuine transaction but one procured through exploitation of his
vulnerable condition. Ex. B9, the reply notice dated 29.04.2002, formed part of
the contemporaneous correspondence between the parties. The Trial Court
noted that no effective rejoinder contradicting Ex. B9 was produced, and relied
on the exchange of notices to conclude that the transaction was not clandestine.
30. The plea of fiduciary relationship was rejected as the appellants failed
to prove that the respondent exercised any dominant influence over Mannappan.
The evidences instead suggested that Mannappan acted independently as the
owner of the property. The allegation of forcible dispossession was also
__________
Page14 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
unsupported by documentary/oral evidence.
31. In addition, the appellants challenged the genuineness of the
consideration stated in the Sale Deed, contending that the sum of Rs.14,50,000/-
is merely nominal and that no actual payment was made. According to them, the
recital acknowledging receipt of consideration is false and inserted only to lend
credibility to an otherwise sham transaction. PW1, examined on behalf of the
appellants, reiterated the allegations in the plaint and deposed that the Sale Deed
was obtained by fraud and undue influence. PW1 asserted that Mannappan was
a habitual alcoholic and lacked the capacity to execute the document. However,
no medical records, hospital documents or expert testimony were produced to
substantiate this claim. In cross-examination, PW1 was unable to produce
contemporaneous evidence showing that Mannappan was incapable of
understanding the transaction.
32. The mere fact of relationship as brother-in-law would not give rise to
any presumption of dominance or control. There is absolutely no material on
record to show that the 1st Respondent was in a position to dominate the will of
Mannappan or that the transaction in question was unconscionable. In the
absence of such foundational facts, the plea of undue influence is wholly
untenable, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Rishi v.
Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC 5. Ex. B9 (reply notice dated 29.04.2002), would
__________
Page15 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
show that the late Mannapan has offered the property to be sold to Respondent 1
for the amount payable by him to Respondent 1.
33. The learned counsel for the respondent would also submit that the
documentary evidence available on record clearly establishes that the
transaction was a bona fide one, supported by valid consideration and
necessitated by compelling financial circumstances. In this regard, reliance is
placed on Ex. B6, which evidences acknowledgment of substantial debt, Ex. B7
and Ex. B9, which are legal notices indicating subsisting liabilities, and Ex. B8,
being a public notice offering the property for sale. These documents clearly
demonstrate that Mannappan was under severe financial distress and had
consciously decided to alienate the property to discharge his liabilities. 33.The
Trial Court has rightly relied upon Ex. A2, Ex. A5 and Ex. A13, which are prior
mortgage transactions, to conclude that Mannappan alone was treated as the
absolute owner of the property. The appellants were only formal parties to such
transactions and had no independent right therein. Significantly, Ex. A13
contains a clear admission on the part of the appellants disclaiming any
ownership right. The Ex. B1 series (affidavits dated 13.08.2001) would clearly
show that the appellants had expressly consented to the mortgage and possible
sale of the property. The signatures contained therein have been admitted during
cross examination. Having once consented to the alienation and acknowledged
the authority of Mannappan, the appellants cannot now be permitted to
__________
Page16 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
approbate and reprobate. Hence the contention that no consideration was passed
that the sale was a nominal sale on coercion cannot stand. It is a settled principle
of law that a registered document carries a presumption of genuineness and due
execution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemalatha (D) by LRs v. Tukaram
(D) by LRs has held that such presumption can be displaced only by cogent and
convincing evidence. Therefore, Issue 2& 3 is answered confirming the findings
of the trial court. In the present case, the appellants have utterly failed to adduce
any such evidence, and therefore the presumption in favour of the Sale Deed
remains wholly unrebutted.
34. In fine, the appeal deserves no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions stands closed. There shall
be no orders as to costs.
20.04.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
PBN
__________
Page17 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
To
1.The Additional Judge – IV,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
__________
Page18 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No. 540 of 2017
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
PBN
A Pre-delivery order made in
AS No. 540 of 2017
and CMP.No.17905 of 2017
20.04.2026
__________
Page19 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
