Madras High Court · 2025

related ceremonies. The second plaintiff was married in 1991 and began to live separately, while the first plaintiff continued to reside in the suit property and maintained her cattle there. The second plaintiff assisted in the maintenance.2.2. For safety purposes, the first plaintiff handed over the assignment order and related records to the defendant. The defendant allegedly obtained the first plaintiff’s thumb impression and the second plaintiff’s signature on blank stamped papers, stating they were required for executing a mortgage deed to meet the expenses incurred for Arumugam’s death ceremonies. The plaintiffs are illiterate women, and nothing was written on the stamp papers at that time. During the Natham Survey, the first plaintiff's possession was recognised, and patta was issued in her name.2.3. On 18.06.2000, the defendant allegedly brought henchmen and forcibly removed the first plaintiff from the property along with her cattle, claiming that he had purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 27.02.1991. The plaintiffs assert that they never executed any sale deed and that the defendant fabricated the documents using the blank signed stamp papers. They deny the thumb impression and signatures on the sale deeds and allege that the document dated 06.03.1991 regarding the superstructure is also forged. Hence, they sought declaration of title and recovery of possession.3/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3. The defendant’s written statement in brief is as follows:The defendant contends that the sale deed dated 27.02.1991 and 06.03.1991 are true, valid and acted upon. The plaintiffs allegedly came to the registration office, executed the documents, and received full sale consideration. Arumugam had earlier mortgaged the property (Bogiyam) to one Shankar on 06.11.1983 for Rs.2,000/-, which the defendant claims to have discharged by paying Rs.3,000/- during Arumugam’s lifetime. After Arumugam’s death, the first plaintiff allegedly borrowed Rs.3,500/- for funeral expenses, Rs.2,000/- for other expenses, and Rs.1,500/- for the second plaintiff's marriage from the defendant. To discharge these debts, the first plaintiff is stated to have sold the suit property to the defendant through two sale deeds. The defendant further contends that even prior to the mortgage, he was residing in the suit property as a lessee under Shankar, paying Rs.50 per month. Therefore, the allegation of permissive possession is denied. After the purchase, he has been paying house tax, professional tax, and electricity charges. The suit is barred by limitation and is not maintainable.4. On the basis of the above pleading, the trial Court has framed the following issues:“1. jhth brhj;J 1k; thjpapd; fztUf;F murhy; xg;gilg;g[ bra;ag;gl;ljh>2.jhthr; brhj;ijg; bghWf;J thjpf;F 03.10.1997 y; 4/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis gl;lh tH';fg;gl;L cs;sjh>3.thjpfis Vkhw;wp/ vjph;thjp mlkhdf; fld; gj;jpuf;if vGjpth';fp bfhz;lhuh>4. 27.02.1991-k; njjpapl;l fpiuag;gj;jpuj;ij 1-k; vjph;thjp n$hoj;Jf;bfhz;lhuh>5. 06.03.1991 -k; njjpapl;l fpiuag;gj;jpuj;ij 1-k; vjph;thjp n$hoj;Jf;bfhz;lhuh>6. nkw;go 27.02.1991 kw;Wk; 06.03.1991 Mtz';fis rhpahd gpujpgyDf;F Vw;gl;Ls;sjh>7. jhth brhj;jpy; vjph;thjp mDkjpapd; nghpy; ,Uf;ftpy;iybad;W TwtJ rhpah>8. ,e;j jhth fhyhtjp njhrj;jhy; ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh>9. thjp tHf;fpy; nfhhpatz;zk; tpsk;g[if ghpfhuk; bgw;wpl chpika[z;lh>10.thjp tHf;fpy; nfhhpatz;zk; brhj;J xg;g[jy; ghpfhuk; bgw;wpl chpika[z;lh>11.ntW vd;d ghpfhu';fs; thjpf;F fpilf;fj;jf;fJ>5. During the course of the trial, on the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. On the side of the defendant, four witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW4 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B46 were marked. The Court exhibits were marked as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2.6. After the conclusion of the trial and upon considering the materials available on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. The defendant preferred a first appeal, and the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court, and decreed the suit. Hence, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.5/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Appellant’s Submissions:7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sale deeds have been knowingly executed by the plaintiffs and that the value consideration are disproved before the Trial Court. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs’ thumb impression and signatures were not obtained in blank papers, as alleged, but were affixed while executing the sale deeds, and the documents cannot be treated as mortgage forms. Immediately after the execution of the sale deeds, the appellant had taken possession of the suit property and has been in enjoyment of the same. Ex.B1 / Ration Card, would also prove such possession.7.1. However, the learned First Appellate Judge relied on Ex.A6 / Reply Notice, to conclude that the defendant had admitted in the notice that he was in possession of the suit property as a permissive occupant. It is submitted that in the reply notice, the defendant has clearly stated that after the sale deeds, he has been in possession of the property and that such possession cannot be construed as permissive possession, but only as a lawful owner of the suit property.7.2. Despite the plaintiffs alleging impersonation committed by the defendant to get the sale deeds executed, the said fact has not been proved. Once the sale deeds have been executed, registered and marked as Ex.B3 6/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and Ex.B4, the plaintiffs cannot retract by contending that the documents were executed only on the presumption that they were mortgage deeds. In fact, the plaintiffs have vacated the suit property and handed over possession to the defendant, thereby admitting the sale deeds, and hence the sale deeds have been acted upon.7.3. Despite the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record, the First Appellate Court has misled itself and had chosen to reverse the judgment of the trial Court without appreciating the evidence. 7.4. Ex.B44 / Special Notice of property tax in the name of Selvam is dated 01.10.1999, and family card of the defendant from the year 1998 would also show the continuous possession of the defendant. 7.5. Reliance has been placed in support of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Placido Francisco Pinto (D) by LR's and another vs. Jose Francisco Pinto and Another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 842.8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, the following substantial questions of law are framed as under:1) Whether in law the First Appellate Court is right in reversing the 7/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis presumption in favour of the defendant with regard to Ex.B3 and Ex.B3, the registered sale deeds executed by the respondents, by relying on their oral evidence?2) Whether in law it is right for the First Appellate Court to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration, when they have not sought the relief of declaration of title, declaration of the sale deeds as null and void, having been parties to the same?3) Whether in law the First Appellate Court is right in ignoring that the suit is barred by limitation, as the sale deeds were executed in the year 1991 itself?Respondent’s Submissions:9. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the plaintiffs have clearly stated that the defendant was inducted into the suit property only on permissive possession. The defendant has also admitted in his written statement that he was residing in the suit property with the permission of the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have pleaded fraud, alleging that the defendant obtained their thumb impression and signatures on blank stamped papers under the pretext of creating a 8/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis mortgage deed. The defendant has in fact, admitted in his written statement that the amounts mentioned were only debts borrowed by the plaintiffs for meeting the funeral expenses of the first plaintiff's husband, Arumugam, and other expenses. Therefore, it is probable that the defendant could have obtained the signatures of the plaintiffs on the blank papers by making them believe that he was going to create a mortgage deed for the loan amounts advanced by him to the plaintiffs.9.1. It is seen from Ex.B3-sale deed that the sale price is Rs.7,500/-, whereas the market value of the suit property was Rs.20,260/-. The superstructure has been conveyed in favour of the defendant for a sale price of Rs.1,000/- under an unregistered sale deed dated 06.03.1991, and such a document cannot be admitted in evidence. 9.2. The trial Judge has observed that the suit property itself has not been proved to be the property assigned in favour of the first plaintiff's husband, Arumugam and proceeded further to observe that the plaintiff's case is not that the defendant had created a mortgage deed. The said observation of the trial Court is erroneous and has not been rectified by the First Appellate Court by properly appreciating the materials on record.9/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9.3. The First Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the legal position that Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 do not require to be set aside before declaring those documents as null and void. The plaintiffs are entitled to maintain the suit for declaration of their title, as they have pleaded fraud, and once fraud is pleaded and proved, it will vitiate the entire transaction.9.4. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court held in Sakkarathayammal and Others vs. Shanmugavel Chettiar and Others reported in 1992 MLJ 175. 10. The plaintiffs never intended to sell the property, and they did not affix their thumb impression or signatures knowing that the title of the suit property was going to be conveyed in favour of the defendant. The notice issued by the Survey Department under Section 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, dated 03.10.1997, for the purpose of measuring the suit property, had been issued to the plaintiffs only because they were in possession of the suit property as owners. The suit property has been filed in the year 2000, and even thereafter, the plaintiffs have not changed the house tax receipts in the defendant’s name, except through Ex.B40. The defendant claims that the house tax receipts have been 10/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis transferred in his name only from 01.03.2001.11. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the suit property was originally owned by the first plaintiff's husband by way of a Government assignment and that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property even prior to the execution of the sale deeds, Ex.B3 and Ex.B4. The contention of the plaintiffs is that although Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 are shown as sale deeds, they were not aware of the same. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the said documents were executed by them under the belief that they were only mortgage deeds, and that the sale deeds were brought about by fraud and misrepresentation.12. The suit property originally belonged to Arumugam by way of an assignment. The defendant, who is a relative of the first plaintiff's husband, sought permission from him to reside in a portion of the suit property. Accordingly, the defendant has been residing in a portion of the house along with the plaintiffs’ family. The first plaintiff and her husband were rearing cattle and had constructed a thatched house for the purpose of maintaining the cattle.13. After the death of Arumugam in 1988, the first plaintiff faced financial difficulties and borrowed amounts from the defendant and also spent 11/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis money for the marriage of the daughter of the 1st plaintiff. Even during the lifetime of the first plaintiff’s husband, he had availed a loan from one Shankar by creating a bogiyam (mortgage) in respect of the suit property, and the said mortgage was discharged by the defendant during the lifetime of the first plaintiff’s husband.14. It is alleged that the first plaintiff had handed over the assignment order and other records relating to the suit property to the defendant only for the purpose of safe custody. The overall contention of the respondent is that, the appellant has been in possession and continues to be in possession of the suit property only as a permissive occupant and not as a owner.15. With regard to Ex.B3, it is a registered sale deed executed in favour of the appellant / defendant. The original of the said sale deed has been produced as Ex.B3 and, therefore, the initial presumption would automatically go in favour of the appellant / defendant. By production of Ex.B3, the appellant / defendant has fulfilled the requirement under Section 91 of the Evidence Act. The very production of Ex.B3 itself is sufficient to prove that the property described therein has been transferred in favour of the appellant / defendant.12/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

16. As per Section 92 of the Evidence Act, the production of a document under Section 91 excludes oral evidence, except under certain specific circumstances. The respondent / plaintiff invokes the first proviso to Section 92 and contends that Ex.B3 is invalid, as it has been brought about by fraud and misrepresentation. It is also submitted that the document is alleged to have been created by impersonation.17. Even though the plaintiffs claim that Ex.B3 has been registered by impersonation, the said allegation has not been substantiated. The plaintiffs have also pleaded that their signatures and thumb impressions were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and that certain blank stamped papers were utilised for creating the sale deeds.18. In fact, the admitted thumb impression of the first plaintiff and the signature of the second plaintiff were compared with the disputed thumb impression and signature found in Ex.B3 by a fingerprint expert, and the report has been marked as Ex.C2. As per the report of the expert, the thumb impression and the signature of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 respectively were found to be identical to those found on the disputed sale deed, Ex.B313/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

19. Even though the opinion of an expert is not a conclusive proof of the genuineness of signatures or thumb impression, the same can be considered as supporting evidence, together with the overall circumstances of the case. Since Ex.B3 is a registered document and the plaintiffs have admitted that they had affixed their signatures and thumb impressions, and in the absence of any evidence to show that the appellant / defendant committed impersonation, the expert’s report can be relied upon to conclude that the thumb impressions and signatures found in Ex.B3 were affixed only by the plaintiffs and that the document was not registered by impersonation. 20. In fact, for comparative purposes, the expert had not only taken into account the signatures found on the stamped papers but also the thumb impression affixed before the Sub-Registrar. When the document is proved to have been executed by the plaintiffs and the original sale deed has been produced as Ex.B3 by the defendant, the burden then shifts to the respondent / plaintiff to prove otherwise by establishing that the document was executed by fraud and misrepresentation.21. In order to prove fraud and misrepresentation, the respondents / plaintiffs relied upon their oral evidence and surrounding circumstances pointed 14/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis out by them. The First Appellate Court also did not dispute the fact that Ex.B3 was registered only in the presence of the respondents / plaintiffs, after obtaining their thumb impressions and signatures.22. Some of the circumstances which have been considered by the First Appellate Court to conclude that the plaintiffs have established fraud and misrepresentation are as follows: i) The plaintiffs are illiterate women with no male support after the death of the first plaintiff’s husband. They borrowed money from the appellant / defendant to meet various expenses, such as the funeral of the first plaintiff’s husband and the marriage of the second plaintiff.ii) In Ex.A6, which is the reply notice sent by the appellant / defendant, he has admitted that his possession of the suit property was only permissive.iii) The witness DW4, Shankar, in whose favour the bogiyam (mortgage) created, has been examined. He stated that Arumugam had borrowed Rs.2,300/- from him and executed the bogiyam deed, which was discharged by the defendant during the lifetime of Arumugam, the first plaintiff’s husband.iv) Ex.B4, the document executed with respect to the superstructure, is not a registered document.v) The respondents / plaintiffs continue to be in possession of the suit property. Ex.A1, the Survey notice issued on 03.10.1997, had been sent to the 15/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis plaintiffs only because they were recognised as persons in possession of the suit property.vi) The sale consideration mentioned in Ex.B3 is far below the market value.vii) With regard to the bogiyam executed in favour of Shankar, the said person has been examined as DW4. In his evidence, he stated that Arumugam had borrowed Rs.2,300/- from him and executed the bogiyam deed, which was later discharged by receiving the said amount from the defendant. To substantiate the same, Ex.B5 has been produced. 23. Though the First Appellate Court has observed that the bogiam has been discharged even when then the 1st plaintiff’s husband was alive, it has not made any observation regarding the fact as to who had discharged the same. The plaintiffs could not produce the discharge bogiam deed, but the appellant / defendant alone could produce the same as Ex.B5. Therefore, the evidence of DW4 along with the appellant’s custody of Ex.B5, shows that the discharge bogiam deed was executed by the defendant. It is irrespective of the fact whether it was done when the 1st plaintiff’s husband was alive or not. In fact, the discharge of the said bogiam by the appellant / defendant clearly shows that the plaintiffs’ family is frequently dependent upon the defendant for meeting serious financial commitments.16/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

24. No doubt, in Ex.A6 reply notice, the appellant / defendant has stated that he had been a permissive occupant in the suit property. Therefore, with that averment found in the reply notice, it can only be concluded that the defendant had not been a tenant under Shankar, but had been in permissive occupation under the plaintiffs. The crucial fact that has to be determined is whether his occupation, in his capacity as a permissive occupant, has subsequently enlarged into an occupation claiming ownership. As far as Ex.B3 is concerned, it is proved to have been executed by the respondents / plaintiffs themselves.25. On the side of the appellant / defendant, two witnessess have been examined as DW2 and DW3. DW2 is the attestor of the document, and DW3 is the attestor before the Registrar. They have also deposed in their evidence that the plaintiffs executed the document by being present in the Sub Registrar’s Office. 26. No doubt the suit has been filed after 9 years from the date of execution of the sale deed. The appellant’s contention that the suit is barred by limitation will be considered while dealing with the 3rd substantial question of law. However, before that, it has to be determined whether the initial presumption in favour of the defendant can be reversed, and whether the oral 17/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis evidence and other circumstances available on record are sufficient to restore the initial presumption in favour of the appellant / defendant based on the oral evidence of the plaintiffs’ side witnesses. The plaintiffs alone have examined themselves as PW1 and PW2, and it is their admitted case that possession, as on the date of filing of the suit, was not with them.27. It is submitted that on 18.06.2000, the appellant / defendant came to the suit property with his henchman and sent the 1st plaintiff and her cattle out of the suit property. Later, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant had fabricated certain documents relating to the sale deed. Though such a forcible dispossession has been alleged by the plaintiffs, no immediate complaint was lodged against the defendant or his henchman. It is also not known how the plaintiffs, who are helpless women, managed to live thereafter without any shelter or support. 28. No independent witnesses have been examined by the respondent / plaintiffs to substantiate the allegation that the appellant / defendant forcibly dispossessed them from the suit property. When a solid piece of evidence such as registered sale deed is available, the sale deed must be given full validity for the purposes for which it was executed. If any seller of immovable property, after executing a registered sale deed, subsequently claims that fraud was played 18/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis on them and that they did not know it was a sale deed, it may not be proper for the Courts to accept the mere oral version of the sellers for the purpose of ignoring or invalidating the sale deed and its consequences. Therefore, one of the crucial points to be proved in order to substantiate the claim of fraud and misrepresentation is the alleged forcible dispossession caused by the appellant / defendant, as stated already.29. One document relied upon by the respondent / plaintiff is Ex.A1, a survey notice issued by Deputy Inspector of Town Survey under Section 9(2) of Tamil Nadu Land Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 dated 03.10.1997. Except for the above notice, the respondent / plaintiff has not produced the house tax receipts or any other documents to show their continuos possession from the date of the sale deed, i.e., from 27.02.1991 to 18.06.2000.30. On the other hand, the appellant / defendant has produced a chain of documents to substantiate his continuos possession in the suit property, marked as Ex.B1, Ex.B6 to Ex.B44. These include the family card of the 1st plaintiff, electricity receipts in the name of the appellant / defendant, the ration card of appellant and the house tax receipts. Even though, some of the house tax receipts were produced subsequent to the filing of the suit, the EB receipts in the name of the defendant are continuos and relevant to the period following the execution of the sale deeds namely Ex.B3 and Ex.B4.19/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

31. In fact, a special notice of property tax was issued in the name of Selvam on 01.10.1999 in Ex.B44, which is admittedly prior to 18.06.2000. When the property tax had not been assessed in the name of appellant / defendant prior to 18.06.2000, it would not have been possible for him to obtain the notice for property tax in his name. With regard to house property, the purchasers would ordinarily be anxious to change the house tax and the electricity service connection immediately after purchasing the same. However, such mutations might not have taken place in the revenue records, and this could have been the reason for serving the notice Ex.A1 to the plaintiff. Therefore, based on that one isolated document alone, the series of documents filed by the appellant / defendant to substantiate his possession cannot be disbelieved. 32. Next comes the unregistered Ex.B4 sale deed in respect of the superstructure standing on the suit property. One explanation given by the appellant / defendant is that the superstructure was in a dilapidated condition and, therefore, at the time when the sale deed was executed, the building was not mentioned. When the sale deed conveys title in favour of a party by describing the property as a vacant site, it is for the registration authorities to verify the genuineness of the description by conducting appropriate local 20/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis inspection or by verifying their records, and accordingly process the document for collection of the required stamp duty.33. The assignment given in favour of the 1st plaintiff’s husband pertains to the portion of the property which has a superstructure. Therefore, while scrutinising the parent documents of the property involved in the sale transaction, the authorities ought to have verified whether all the previous documents mentioned the existence of the building. As the registration authorities did not raise any inspection-related queries before releasing the sale deed, it can only be presumed that the superstructure might have been in a dilapidated condition and of little value at that time. Hence, the subsequent document Ex.B4 in respect of the superstructure cannot be given undue significance when there is already a registered document, Ex.B3 dated 27.02.1991, which has been proved to have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the appellant / defendant.34. The learned counsel for the appellant / defendant relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Placido Francisco Pinto (D) by LR's and another, referred to supra, in support of his contention that once there is an admission by the executant that certain money has been paid by the purchaser to discharge the debts of the seller and, in pursuance 21/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis thereof, a sale deed has been executed, it carries a presumption of correctness. It cannot be said to be illegal merely on the basis of a claimed ignorance that signatures were obtained on papers which the seller did not know. In this regard, the relevant part of the above judgment is extracted for better understanding:“21. The parties are in near relations, the appellant No.1 being the elder brother and the sale was executed to help his younger brother who was facing auction of the property gifted by the parents of the parties. Even the defendants’ witnesses have admitted that there was a notice of Court auction of the property in question by beat of drum. Therefore, if elder brother had come to the help of the younger brother, discharging his debtors and executing a sale deed mentioning a nominal sale consideration, it cannot be said to be a sale without consideration. It is admitted by respondent No.1 that a sum of Rs.12,000/- was paid by the appellant No. 1 to discharge his debts. Once there is an admission of the respondent No. 1 of discharge of his debts by appellant No.1, the sale deed registered in normal course of official duties carries the presumption of correctness which cannot be said to be illegal only on the basis of feigned ignorance that his signatures were obtained on papers which respondent No. 1 and his wife did not know. The Judgment of this Court in Bellachi supports the argument raised by the appellants.22. The only stand of respondent No.1 is ignorance of the nature of the document on which his signatures were obtained. Such ignorance is not an instance of misrepresentation or a fraud in the facts of the present case which would vitiate a sale deed executed and registered with the Sub-Registrar. It has been admitted by respondent No. 1 that he went to the Sub-Registrar’s office with his wife, signed once outside the Municipal Building and once before the Officers, shows that tactically he has admitted execution of the sale deed without expressly stating so. We find that the findings of the Courts below that the document is without consideration or the consideration having not pleaded in the 22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis plaint or the fact that appellant No. 1 has discharged the debtors of respondent No. 1 will not render the document of sale deed as void.”35. In the instant case also, the plaintiffs have not denied that they obtained a loan from the appellant / defendant to meet the funeral expenses of the deceased husband of the 1st plaintiff and the marriage expenses of the 2nd plaintiff, etc. The defendant has also produced the discharged bogiam document as Ex.B5, and the bogiam holder has likewise given evidence regarding the receipt of the bogiam debt from the appellant / defendant on behalf of the 1st plaintiff’s husband.36. Apart from that, in the pleadings of the plaintiffs themselves, it has been admitted that they handed over the original assignment deeds and other documents relating to the suit property in favour of the appellant / defendant. Such handing over of original title deeds would occur either in trust or at the time when the property itself has been conveyed in favour of the purchaser. Therefore, the appellant / defendant’s specific contention is that he has purchased the suit property, and that is the reason why he was given with the possession of the prior documents of title as well as the possession of the property.23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

37. This also probabilises the fact that the respondents are knowingly handed over the assignment deeds and all other documents to the appellant / defendant only because they had parted with the property by executing the sale deed Ex.B3. The defendant’s possession of the suit property has also been admitted by the very relief sought by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession. The allegation that they were forcibly dispossessed from the property has not been proved by them. In such circumstances, the finding of the First Appellate Court is not correct.38. No doubt, the sale deed shows a lesser sale price than the market value of the suit property. That alone cannot be a reason to disregard the sale deed; it all depends upon the seller’s need or urgency to sell the property, even for a rock-bottom price. If a seller knowingly disposes the suit property for a price lower than the market value, it may also indicate the financial emergencies faced by the seller. Even though the plaintiffs have pleaded fraud and misrepresentation, the evidence on record does not substantiate such a plea. Hence, it was wrong on the part of the First Appellate Court to arrive at a hasty conclusion without considering the entire evidence and the surrounding circumstances in their proper perspective. Thus, the substantial question of law No.1 is answered.24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

39. The next substantial question of law is with regard to seeking the relief of declaration of title without seeking the relief of declaration that the sale deed is null and void. No doubt, the plaintiffs are parties to the sale deed Ex.B3, and the suit has been filed merely to declare their title over the suit property without seeking any relief concerning the binding nature of the sale deed executed by them.40. The learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff submitted that if fraud and misrepresentation have been alleged in respect of the execution of the document, such allegations, if proved, would render the document void by themselves, and hence, there is no necessity for the plaintiff to seek a separate relief of declaration in respect of the sale deed.41. No doubt, the legal position regarding fraud and misrepresentation is well settled. If a document is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation, the party challenging it is entitled to a relief of declaration, even without specifically seeking a relief that the document is null and void. In the manner in which the plaint has been filed, it has been claimed that Ex.B3 is tainted with fraud and misrepresentation. As the plaintiffs believed that they could prove their allegation of fraud and misrepresentation, the suit has been filed for declaration of title while ignoring the very sale deed.25/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

42. Though the legal position is correct, the entitlement to relief depends solely upon the proof offered by the plaintiffs in support of their allegation of fraud and misrepresentation. Therefore, the failure to seek any relief for declaration in respect of the sale deed is based on the pleadings made, and not on the pleadings proved. Thus the substantial questions of law No.2 and 3 are answered. With regard to the question of limitation also, the position can be understood only in the manner in which the cause of action is pleaded and not proved.43. In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2012 passed in A.S. No. 103 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore is set aside and the judgment of the trial Court is restored. No costs. 04.12.2025Index: Yes / NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderATTo1.The III Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.2.The Additional District Munsif Court at Cuddalore.26/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Dr. R.N. MANJULA, J.AT S.A. No. 774 of 201204.12.202527/27