Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. Here, in Ex.A16-the caveat petition filed by Arunachala Gounder, even anterior to the filing of the suit, he would simply state as follows:-

"He falsely obtained the sale deed. The said sale deed cancelled by me"(emphasis supplied) Arunachala Gounder's stand in Ex.A6 would clearly reveal that as per him a fraud was committed on him in getting executed Ex.A6 by him, wherefore it is crystal clear as per the well settled proposition of law that 'fraud' would render a document voidable and not void. In this connection I would like to extract hereunder an excerpt from the famous legal classic Broom's Legal Maxim (10th Edition page 541) ". . . . . . . And a contract induced by fraud is not void but only voidable at the election of the party defrauded". A fortiori Arunachala Gounder, as per his stand, should have filed a suit to get set aside or cancelled Ex.A6, which he had not done. It is not for Arunachala Gounder to decide his case for himself. It is for the Court, in such appropriate suit which ought to have been filed by Arunachala Gounder, as per his stand, to decide whether the said sale deed executed by him is false or not.