Subbulakshmi vs S. Chockkalingam Pillai and another

Srinivasan, J.—The petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 213of 1977 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Udamalpet for declaration of her title to

the suit property and for direction to the third defendant to deliver possession of the property to her. Her case was that the property belonged to

her maternal grandfather Velayutham Pillai of Kinathukadavu, Pollachi Taluk. The said Velayutham Pillai had two sons, Nanjappa and

Somasundara. The first defendant in the suit was the son of Somasundaram, while the second defendant was the grand-son of Nanjappa, being the

son of Kuppusamy Pillai. Velayutham bequeathed the suit property in favour of his invalid daughter Valliammal while she was a minor under the

registered will dated 4-6-1922. Velayutham died on 13-5-1923. According to the plaintiff, the property vested absolutely with Valliammal and she

was in enjoyment of the same after the death of Velayutham. Valliammal died on 19-7-1975 and the plaintiff became the absolute owner thereof.

Defendants 1 and 2 were interfering with her possession. The third defendant was her tenant The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground

that Valliammal got only a life interest and the will provided that after her lifetime, the property should go to her male heirs. According to them, the

Will also provided that if there was no male issue for Valliammal, the property should be taken by the male heirs of Velayutham Pillai. Thus,

according to the defendants, when Valliammal died without a male issue, the property became that of defendants 1 and 2, who were the male heirs

of Velayutham. The trial court negatived the case of the defendants and held that on a construction the Will, the property was given absolutely to

Valliammal, on whose death it devolved on the plaintiff. The suit was decreed with reference to the relief of declaration of plaintiff''s title. In so far

as possession was concerned, the trial court held that she must proceed against the third defendant under the special law relating to cultivating

tenants. Against the said decree, defendants 1 and 2 filed A.S. No. 1068 of 1978 in this Court. The appeal was dismissed by a learned single

Judge of this Court by judgment dated 20-8-1983. The learned judge, while holding that what was given to Valliammal under the Will was only a

life estate, held that it got enlarged u/s 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act and thereby Valliammal became the absolute owner of the property.

Thus, the learned Judge confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court.

Defendants 1 and 2 filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 36 of 1984, which was admitted on 18-4-1984. In a petition for stay pending the appeal,

notice and interim stay were ordered.

The Letters Patent Appeal was disposed on 23-2-1988 by a decree passed on a compromise between the parties. A compromise memo was

filed before Court with the heading ""The Razinama filed on behalf of the appellants and respondent under Order 23, Rule 3 and Section 151 of

Civil Procedure Code. '' As per the terms of the memo, the first appellant was entitled to 1 acre 50 cents set out in ''C Schedule therein and the

second appellant was entitled to 1 acre 50 cents mentioned in B'' Schedule therein. The respondent therein (Petitioner herein) was entitled to 1

acre 60 cents mentioned in ''A'' Schedule. The parties were to bear their costs. The memo was typed on both sides of a paper. On the second

page, it contained a signature purporting to be that of the respondent therein and the signatures ""of the appellants. The signature of the respondent

therein was attested by an advocate of Coimbatore by name L. Viswanathan on 16-2-1988 with the endorsement ""The above named respondent

solemnly affirmed and signed before me at Coimbatore on this the 16th Day of February 1988. The memo was signed by the counsel who was

appearing for the respondent therein 19-2-1988. Similarly, it was signed by the advocate for the appellants therein on the same day. It was on the

strength of the said memo, the Court passed the decree as aforesaid.

These two petitions were filed on 9-1-1990 by the respondent in the Letters Patent Appeal one for setting aside the decree dated 23-2-1988

passed in the Letters Patent Appeal and the other for an injunction restraining the respondents herein from dealing with the property which is the

subject matter of the suit O.S. No. 213 of 1977 till the disposal of the petitions. In these petitions, notice was ordered by Court on 10-1-1990 to

the respondents and interim injunctions was granted. The counsel who was appearing in the L.P.A. for the respondents stated before the Court

that the entire papers had been returned to the parties. On that footing the Court ordered notice to the respondents and granted interim injunction.

The notice was served on the first respondent on 20-1-1990 and on the second respondent on 3-8-1991. Neither of them chose to file any

counter affidavit till 3-8-1995 when the matter came up for final orders. On that date, the first respondent filed a counter affidavit both on his behalf

and on behalf of the second respondent A supporting affidavit was filed on 30-8-1995 by one K. Chelladhurai.

The averments in the affidavit of the petitioner in so far as they are necessary for the purpose of these petitions are that when she received notice

from the High Court in L.P. A. 36 of 1984 she went to Coimbatore in or about August 1984 and got introduced to one Mr. Swamidurai, clerk of

an advocate Mr. V.S. Venkateswaralyer, Coimbatore. It is stated that the said Swamidurai took her to the said advocate and they promised help

her in conducting the L.P.A. All the papers were taken by the said Swamidurai and thereafter, she did not get any intimation about the case in spite

of her going to Coimbatore a enquiring the said Swamidurai, who assured her that she need not worry about the case and he would inform her as

and when the case was disposed of. Paragraphs 9 to 14 of her affidavit read as follows:-

On 30-6-1993 Mr. Swamidurai wrote to me reply to my letter. He stated in that letter that he received my letter mat he received my letter, he

had been to Madras to conduct the case on 26-5-88 the case was listed and he was present at that time; mat Chockkalinagam and Visvanathan

defendants 1 and 2 contended that the will executed by Velayudhmn Pillai will be effective only if Valliammal had male issue and as Valliammal had

no male issue, the Will did not take effect; that on my side it was argued that the will be effective only if Valliarainal had female issue and that

judgment had been reserved It is further stated God should decide the matter and in. the meantime there was strike and as soon as the strike is

over, the judgment will be delivered. He requested me to meet him 15 days after receipt of that letter. It is strange that the Advocate Clerk has

written that there was a hearing of L.P. Appeal on 26-5-88. In July 1988, I met the clerk Swamidurai and he told me that Judgment had not yet

been delivered and he would keep me informed as soon as he receives intimation from the advocate in Madras. I did not contact Swamidurai for

some time believing the promise made by him in September, 1989 I received a postcard dated 2-9-1989 from Swamidurai stating that I did not

meet him in spite of his letter, that there was an urgent message to be conveyed to me, that I should meet him as soon as I received that letter, that

Mr. Chokkalingam and Viswanathan are arranging to execute a lease deed in favour of Palani Gounder after receiving Rs. 20,000/-. I went and

met him. He demanded money. Another letter dt. 9-9-1989 was received by me wherein Swamidurai had stated, in spite of 2 letters written by

him I did not meet him, that on 15-9-1989 opposite parties are going to survey the property, that in Pollachi Court Palani Gounder had instituted a

case. Even for that case I had not cared to go and see him and as soon as I received the letter I should meet him. I went to Coimbatore ore and

met him pursuant to the letters. He said that Judgement had been delivered in the appeal by two learned Judges and he had not received the copy

from the Advocate at Madras. He also said that I should pay him money for all the help he had done, and if the money is not paid he will not hand

over the papers.

On 20-9-1989 Mr. V.S. Venkateswara Iyer, Advocate, 44 Father Rand Street, Coimbatore on behalf of C.S. Rukmani, wife of A P.

Swamidurari issued notice calling upon me to pay the money mentioned therein. It is stated in the notice that on 8-9-1984 for conducting case and

for family expenses I had executed a promissory note in her favour on receiving Rs. 7500/- and on 4-9-1987 a sum of Rs. 200/- was paid

towards the debt due on mat promissory note and an endorsement was made. At mat time (on 4-9-1987) for Court expenses and for family

expenses I received Rs. 5000/- and executed a promissory note on the same date viz., 4-9-1987, agreeing to pay interest at 12% per annum. It is

further stated in the notice that in spite of demands made on several occasions I had been evading, it is further stated that I should make the

payment within 7 days from receipt of the notice. The notice is sent to my son Manikandan also, on the basis that he also executed the promissory

note. After receipt of the notice I went to Coimbatore and met Mr. Venkateswara Iyer. He said he had issued the notice on instructions from Mr.

A.P. Swamidurari and I should go and ask him about the contents of the notice. I then went to meet Swamidurai and took him to Mr.

Venkateswara Iyer, because Mr. Swamidurai is the clerk of Mr. Venkateswara Iyer. Both of them said that notice had been issued just to make

me to come to Coimbatore and settle their dues for conducting the case at Madras and if I paid Rs. 20,000/- Mr. Swamidurai will hand over the

papers to me.

Mr. Swamidurai also stated that the High Court had decided that each of the parties defendants land 2 and plaintiff myself, should take 1.50 acres.

I came into contact with one Mrs. Sarojini in Coimbatore who is the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Document Writers Association in

Coimbatore and she promised to take me to Madras and introduced Mr. S. Ettikhan, Advocate who has been conducting the cases for the

document writers in the High Court When we were planning to go to Madras, I received a letter dated 6-10-1989 on 14-10-1989 from Firka

Surveyor, Kinathukadavu informing me that he is going to survey the lands. Immediately we rushed to Madras and contacted Mr. S. Ettikkan and

came to know that L.P. Appeal No. 36 of 1984 had been disposed of, on the basis of compromise alleged to have been arrived at between me

and defendants 1 and 2. I did not receive any intimation from anybody about the hearing of the case. I did not have an opportunity to give

instructions to my counsel. Mr. S. Ettikkan informed us, Learned Counsel Mr. G.M. Nathan had appeared for me. Myself and Mrs. Sarojini went

to Mr. G.M Nathan in October 1989 and enquired about the matter and he told us that L.P. Appeal had been disposed of and all the papers had

been dispatched to Mr. A.P. Swamidurai, Coimbatore and I should contact Swamidurai. I went to Coimbatore immediately from Madras and met

Swamidurai in or about 17-10-1989. He said that he would not divulge anything unless Rs. 20,000/- is paid to him.

On 18-10-1989, Igaveareply to the Firka Surveyor to his letter dated 6-10-1989 which was received by me on 14-10-1989 stating that there

was no Panchayat at all and there was no compromise and I am taking steps to rectify matters at Madras. Thereafter, I could not come to Madras

to give instructions for filling the application to set aside the decree as I had to make arrangements of my elder son''s marriage on 10-11-1989.

On 2-1-19901 came to Madras and contacted Mr. Ettikkan. He said that he cannot do anything in the matter unless change of Vakalatth is

obtained from Mr. G. M Nathan. I could not get change of Vakalatu on 2-1-1990 and I could get the change of Vakalath only on 3-1-1990

evening. I instructed Mr. S. Ettikkan to file Vakalath on 4-1-1990 and a letter was filed for looking at the records.

On a perusal of the records it transpires that notice was served on me in L.P. Appeal by registered post on 5-7-1984 and a Vakalath is said to

have been signed by me on 2-10-1984 at Coimbatore, same was attested by V.S. Venkateswara Iyer, Advocate, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road,

Tatabad, Coimbatore - 12 and on 11.10.1984 Vakalath had been presented in S.R. No. 108481 and Vakalath accepted by M/s. G.M. Nathan,

M8. Dominique and K. Sugumaran. A memo of compromise is alleged to have been signed by me at Coimbatore on 16-2-1988 and it has been

attested by Mr. L. Viswanathan, Advocate, Coimbatore. Mr. K. Govindarajan, Counsel for Appellants and Mr. G.M Nathan had signed on

19.2.88, and the Memo of compromise would appear to have been presented in open court on 23.2.1988. On the basis of that compromise this

Hon''ble Court was pleased to pass a decree in terms of the compromise.

In Paragraph 15 she has stated that there was no need for her entering into a compromise as she had succeeded in two courts. She has said that

the signature found in the compromise was not her signature and it was forged. It is further stated that she came to know about the fraud only in

October, 1989.

In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent it is averred that when the Letters Patent Appeal was pending, the petitioner along with one

Mr. Chelladurai in whose house she was working as servant maid, went to the house of dependent and told him that she was in need of money and

instead of prolonging the case in Court, they could settle the matter by way of compromise. It is stated that ultimately the respondents agreed for

her taking 1.60 acres and their taking 1.50 acres each out of the suit property. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as follows:-

For this proposal the petitioner extended her consent with full volition without any reservation and further informed that she herself would make

ready the compromise memo in consultation with herby local Advocate and would take steps to forward the signed compromise memo to her

counsel at Madras for approval. Thereafter we came to Madras on 19.2.1988 and contacted our then counsel Mr. K. Govindaraj and informed

him about the compromise arrived at between ourselves and the petitioner herein. With the aid of our counsel Mr. K. Govindaraj we met Mr.

G.M. Nathan, the then counsel on record for the petitioner Mr. G.M. Nathan was kind enough to show the compromise memo signed by the

petitioner and instructed us to hand over the same to our counsel Mr. K. Govindaraj for further course of action. As advised by our then counsel

we signed the compromise memo and steps were taken to record the same. Based on this compromise memo this Hon''ble Court was pleased to

pass a Judgement and decree dated 23.2.1988.

It is alleged in the subsequent paragraph that she acted upon the compromise and kept quiet for two years during which period, they had been

receiving 2/3rd of the lease amount from the tenant on land. In paragraph 14 it is repeated that they saw the memorandum of compromise only at

Madras with the signature of the petitioner in her advocate''s house. The allegation of fraud is denied. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that

there was a proceeding for acquisition of an extent of 1.90 acres out of the suit property and in the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act,

the petitioner had expressed her consent for the acquisition. The first respondent, however filed W.P. No. 3666 of 1984 challenging the

proceedings and got stay of further proceedings. The writ petition was allowed on 10-11-1991 in so far as the first respondent was concerned. It

is further stated that the compromise was a genuine and valid one and the petitions should be dismissed.

The supporting affidavit of Mr. Chelladurai is that of a Irving person and it can have no value as Chelladhurai has not been examined in this case.

We have already referred to the averment in the counter affidavit that Chelladurai ""was the employer of the petitioner herein.

We directed the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. The petitioner has examined herself as P. W. 1 and her

son as P.W. 2. The respondents have examined the first respondent as their only witness. At the stage of arguments, we found that it was

necessary to issue subpoena to the advocate Mr. L. Viswanathan, who had attested the signature of the petitioner in the memorandum of

compromise. He has been examined as Court witness. He has been cross examined by counsel on both sides. The petitioner has filed as many as

non documents in support of her case and the respondents have filed two documents.

Before considering the evidence on record,, it is necessary for us to point out that neither party has chosen to examine any handwriting expert.

At the conclusion of the arguments, the counsel for the petitioner made an oral request for sending the memorandum of compromise to an expert.

We refused to accede to that request.

However, by exercising our power u/s 73 of the Evidence Act, we have compared the disputed signature in the memorandum of compromise

with the admitted signatures of the petitioner which are available in the vakalat filed by her in A.S.1068 of 1978 and L.P.A. No. 36 of 1984. The

vakalath in A.S.1068 of 1978 was executed on 8-1-1979 before an Advocate of Madras, whose name we are unable to decipher from the

vakalath. The vakalath was filed in Court on 10-1-1979. The petitioner was represented in the said appeal by Mr. M. Kumaraswamy Pillai and

Mr. W.S. Sivasankar. The vakalath in the L.P. A. was filed in Court on 11-10-1984. Mr. G.M. Nathan, Miss. M.B. Dominique and Mr. K.

Sukumaran had accepted the vakalat. The vakalat was executed on 8-10-1984 at Coimbatore before Mr. V.S. Venkateswara Iyer, Advocate. A

comparison of the signatures in the two vakalats shows that they are identical. The signature of the petitioner in 1984 is identical with the signature

of the petitioner in 1979. But, when we compared the two signatures which are the admitted signatures with the disputed signature on the

memorandum of compromise, we find that there is vast differences between them. The disputed signature cannot be considered to have been made

by the same person who made the admitted signatures in the two vakalaths. The signatures are in Tamil. They read (sic) A. The letter comes in two

places in the signature. In the admitted signatures, the letter V is written as (sic). But, in the compromise memo the same letter is written as (sic).

While in the genuine signatures, the left vertical line touches the curve at the bottom, it stops with the horizontal line in the disputed signature. It is

very vital difference to be taken into account Similarly, there is a vast difference in the loop and the curves in the letter (sic) and in the letter (sic)

No doubt, the facts that the petitioner is an illiterate woman and that she does not have a settled uniform signature, have to be recognised, but the

method of writing the letters will not change, as the same method had been adopted by her in 1979 and in 1984. For the sake of convenient

reference, we are marking the two vakalaths as Ex. X-1 and X-2 in this proceeding. The signatures in the deposition given in this present

proceedings are also similar to the signatures in the two vakalaths referred to above. The difference in the signatures which is apparent to the naked

eye indicates prima facie that the signature found in the memorandum of compromise is not that of the petitioner but we cannot rest our conclusion

on that alone as the advocate who has attested the signature found in memorandum of compromise has given evidence before us as C.W.1. In

answer to questions put by the Court, he has deposed that the signature found in the memorandum of compromise was made in his presence after

he explained the contents of the memorandum in Tamil to the signatory. In cross-examination by the petitioner''s counsel, he has stated that the lady

who signed the memorandum was brought to him by Advocate Venkateswara Iyer and his clerk. He admitted that he never knew the signatory

before she was brought for attestation. Normally, we would have accepted the evidence of C.W. 1 as proving the signature of the petitioner in the

memorandum of compromise. But, the following circumstances prevent us from accepting the said evidence: -

(1) C.W.1 has not identified the petitioner as the person who signed the memorandum of compromise in his presence. It may be that some other

lad was taken to him by the Advocate''s clerk and made to (sic) his presence as ''Subbulakshmi''. We are unable to accept that part of his version

that Venkateswara Iyer also accompanied his clerk to identify the person who signed the memorandum of compromise in the presence of C.W. 1,

(2) C.W.1 had issued a counter paper publication in ''Daily Thanthi'' on behalf of the respondents herein on 20-6-1995. The publication was made

in the issue dated 21-6-1995. The same has been marked as Ex. P-7. That is in reply to Ex. P-6, which is a public aurora be by the petitioner

''Dina Thanthi'' dated 5-6-1995 warning the public that the lands in Survey Number 339/1 in Vadaputhur village, Kinathukadavu Taluk of an

extent of 4.60 acres belonged to her exclusively and the matter was pending in Court in C.M.P. No. 478 of 1990 (the present petition) and that if

anybody purchases from the respondents or their power of attorney agent, the sale will not bind her. In Ex. P-7 C.W 1 has given a reply to Ex. P-

6 on behalf of the respondents herein alleging that the averments found in the publication in Ex. P-6 were false. It was further alleged that the

petition C.M.P.478 of 1990 was already dismissed by this Court. When this publication was put to C.W. 1 and he was asked whether he could

recollect that he gave the publication in June 1995 on behalf of the first respondent, he answered that he could not recollect. When he was asked

as to who gave instructions to him to give paper publication, he replied that the party involving the advertisement and the clerk Swamiuurai gave

instructions to him. The next question was whether he knew that the party involving the advertisement was Chockalingam (1st respondent). His

answer was"" No. I do not remember. I do not know him."" C.W.1 has deposed that he was enrolled as an advocate on 24-3-1947 and that he is

still practising at Coimbatore. Thus, he is an advocate of 48 years standing. We are unable to believe him when he says that he could not recollect

whether he gave the paper publication on behalf of the first respondent. The publication was only on 21-6-1995 and he was examined in our Court

on 14-9-1995. It is not possible to accept his evidence that within such a short period be forgot the person who gave instructions to him to issue

publication. It is not known how he is able to remember what happened about seven year back when he attested the signature of one

Subbulakshmi on 16-2-1988 in the Memorandum of Compromise. In our opinion, the evidence of C.W.1 does not prove that the signature found

on the memorandum of compromise is that of the petitioner.

(3) The story of the respondents that the petitioner informed them that she would herself prepare the compromise and send it to Madras and that

they could go to Madras and await the compromise memo is wholly unbelievable, as it is entirely unnatural. In a matter in which one party had

succeeded in two Courts, if a compromise is entered into, the parties who lost in both the Courts will see to it that the compromise is signed in their

presence and they will take all the initiative to take the memorandum of compromise to the concerned counsel and get it filed in Court so that they

can be sure of getting a decree passed in terms of such a compromise. Normally, whenever a compromise is entered between two parties, both

the parties will sign the memorandum of compromise in the presence of their counsel or mediators at the same time. The version that the

compromise was signed at Coimbatore by the petitioner in the presence of C. W. 1 and sent by her to her advocate at Madras is wholly

unbelievable. It is not in dispute that the respondents did not know the advocate of the petitioner previously. It is hardly believable that they met the

said advocate and be immediately handed over the memorandum of compromise to them containing the signature of the petitioner. On the other

hand, the probability is that Swamidurai, who according to the petitioner, engaged a counsel on her behalf, must have taken the said memorandum

of compromise to the counsel and informed him that the petitioner had signed the same, but for which the counsel who was appearing for the

petitioner in the LP. Appeal would not have signed the same. The very fact that an unnatural story is put forward by the respondents, proves that

all is not well with the memorandum of compromise on the basis of which a decree has been passed in the L.P.A.

Once the evidence of C.W.1 is eschewed, there is ample material on record to show that the memorandum of compromise is a result of a

collusion between the respondents and the Vakil''s clerk Swamidurai. Significantly, the respondents have not examined him as a witness in this case

in spite of the feet that he has helped them to issue the paper publication (Ex. P-7) through C.W.1 in reply to Ex. P-6. R.W.1 has deposed that he

does not know either the Vakil''s clerk Swamidurai or the Advocate Mr. Visvanathan. But, when he was confronted with Ex. P-7, he admitted that

he gave instructions for the said publication through Mr. Viswanathan. A perusal of the evidence of R.W.1 who has studied upto S.S.L.C. shows

that he is prevaricating. His evidence does not inspire any confidence in us.

No doubt, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is also discrepant But, we cannot forget the fed that both of them are illiterates and they cannot be

expected to depose accurately with reference to various matters which tool place six or seven years back.

However, there is documentary evidence to show that the vakil''s clerk Swamidurai has colluded with the respondents. The compromise

decree is dated 23-2-1988. But, on 30-6-1988 Swamidurai wrote to P. W. 1 a post-card informing her that the L.P.A. was listed on 26-5-1988

and he went to Madras to conduct the case. The post-card purports to set out the respective arguments of the advocates. It is stated in the post-

card that judgment had been reserved and that favourable result would be pronounced shortly after the lawyer''s strike comes to an end, P.W. 1

was requested by Swamidurai to meet him in 15 days. Ex. P-2 is another post-card bearing dates 2-9-1989 written by Swamidurai to P. W. 1, in

which she is requested to go over to meet him immediately. It is alleged therein that the respondents were making arrangements to give a lease of

the property of Palani Gounden after receipt of Rs. 20,000/-.

Ex. P-3 is a post-card dated 9-9-1989 written by Swamidurai to the petitioner blaming the petitioner for not meeting him earner. It is stated therein

that the respondents have arranged to survey the lands on 15-9-1989. Ex. P-4 is a notice by Venkateswara Iyer dated 20-9-1989 to the

petitioner and her son calling upon her to pay the amount due to Mrs. Rukmani, wife of Swamidurai on a promissory note executed by the

petitioner for Rs.7500/- on 8-9-1984. That notice shows that Venkateswara Iyer was acting on behalf of Swamidurai. Ex. P-5 is a letter by the

petitioner to the Firka Surveyor of Kinathukadavu Taluk informing him about the proceedings initiated by her to get the compromise decree in the

L.P. Appeal set aside and requesting him not to act in pursuance of the application of the respondents. Copies thereof have been married to the

respondents as well as the tenant Palanisamy Gounder and the Tahsildar of Pollachi. She has alleged therein that Swamidurai has played a fraud on

her in collusion with the respondents. We have already referred to the paper publications marked as Exs. P-6 and P-7. Ex. P-8 is a letter to the

Sub Registrar, Kinathukadavu on behalf of the petitioner by her advocate R. Venkatakrishnan and G.R. Swaminathan, Madras on 24-4-1995

requesting him to forbear from registering any document with respect to the suit property. Copies have been marked to the respondents. Ex. P-9 is

a letter by the same advocates to the District Revenue Officer, Kinathukadavu with a similar request Exs. P-1 to P-3 show that Swamidurai has

been giving false information to the petitioner as if the L.P. A. was argued on 26-5-1988 and judgment had been reserved. Ex. P-4 proves that

Swamidurai had taken promissory note in the name of his wife for a sum of Rs. 7,500/-. P.W. 1 has disposed that Swamidurai got it signed by her

after the institution of the suit alleging that the amount was required for expenses in the proceedings. The documentary and oral evidence adduced

in these proceedings by the petitioner clearly makes out that Swamidurai has played an important part in tiling the memorandum of compromise in

L.P. A. No. 36 of 1984 and getting a decree passed on the strength thereof. The respondents ought to have examined the said Swamidurai as he

is now admittedly helping them.

It goes without saying that the burden of proving the genuineness of the memorandum of compromise is on the respondents inasmuch as the

petitioner has denied her signature found therein. The respondents have failed to discharge the said burden by adducing sufficient evidence to clear

the suspicions which arise on perusal of the documents.

There is one other important factor which is relevant in this case to show that the respondents have played a fraud on the petitioner. We nave

already referred to the filing of the writ petition by the first respondent challenging the proceedings of acquisition of a portion of the suit property.

The said writ petition was filed on 3-4-1984 and taken on file as W.P. No. 3666 of 1984. It is in challenge of the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act issued in G.O.Ms. No. 91, Social Welfare Department dated 18-1-1984 and the declaration under Section6of the Land

Acquisition Act issued in G.O.Ms. No. 832, Social Welfare Department dated 3-3-1984. It is seen from the record in the writ petition that the

proceedings for acquisition related to 1.90 acres out of the suit property. The memorandum of compromise purports to allot the ''A'' Schedule

therein to the petitioner comprising 1 acre 60 cents. It is seen that the entirety of ''A'' Schedule is part of the extent of 1 acre 90 cents sought to be

acquired in the Land Acquisition Proceedings referred to above. When the writ petition was disposed of on 10-12-1991, the first respondent

herein, who was the petitioner therein, informed the Court that as a result of the compromise he was entitled to 30 cents from the extent of 1 acre

90 cents sought to be acquired and the said extent of 30 cents should be excluded from the acquisition proceedings. The present petitioner was not

made a party to the writ petition. The Court accepted his contention as regards the validity of the land acquisition proceedings and quashed the

proceedings in so far as the petitioner therein (first respondent herein) was concerned Thus, it is seen that the first respondent has been clever

enough to allot to the share of the petitioner herein in the memorandum of compromise an extent of 1 acre 60 cents, the entirety of which was the

subject matter of the acquisition proceedings, which remained undisturbed.

We have already pointed out that the discrepancies between the averments in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of her petition and

her deposition on which reliance is placed by Learned Counsel for the respondents cannot be given much weight as the petitioner is an illiterate

woman. Equally her son is also an illiterate. After carefully considering the entire evidence on record, we have no hesitation to conclude that the

memorandum of compromise filed in L.P.A. No. 36 of 1984 was a fabricated document and the signature of Subbulakshmi found therein was

forged. The petitioner was not a party to the said compromise and the decree based on the said compromise has to be set aside. Consequently,

we allow C.M.P. No. 478 of 1990 and set aside the decree in L.P.A. No. 36 of 1984 passed on 23-2-1988. The Letters Patent Appeal is

restored to file and it has to be heard on merits. In view of the disposal of C.M.P. No. 478 of 1990 as above, there is no need to pass an order of

injunction in C.M.P. No. 477 of 1990 inasmuch as the decree in favour of respondents 1 and 2 has been set aside. Respondents 1 and 2 shall pay

costs of the petitioner in C.M.P. No. 478 of 1990. Counsel''s fee Rs. 5,000/-.