judgement
Subject : Civil Law - Property Law
Description :
The case involves a dispute over the partition of an ancestral property between the plaintiffs (
The plaintiffs argued that the settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favor of the second and third defendants was obtained fraudulently. They claimed that the first defendant was misled into signing the document, believing it was an insurance proposal. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the settlement deed was executed voluntarily by the first defendant and was a valid document.
The court noted that the execution of the settlement deed was not denied by the first defendant, who remained ex-parte during the proceedings. The court held that the burden of proving the document was obtained fraudulently rested on the plaintiffs, as the document was a registered one. However, the plaintiffs failed to discharge this burden, as the first defendant did not support their claim.
The court observed that the plaintiffs' statement in the plaint that the first defendant was misled into signing the document was not substantiated by any evidence. The court also noted that the non-prosecution of the suit by the first defendant could be construed as his tacit acceptance of the settlement deed.
The court partially modified the trial court's decree. It upheld the validity of the settlement deed and held that the defendants 2 and 3 would be entitled to a 3/10th share each in the suit property, while the plaintiffs would each receive a 1/5th share.
The appeal suit was partly allowed with the above modification, and no costs were awarded.
#PropertyDispute #SettlementDeed #AncestralProperty #MadrasHighCourt
Supreme Court Rules Criminal Courts Must Not Act As Recovery Agents For Disputed Dues
27 Jul 2026
Rajya Sabha Bill Seeks To Criminalize Vande Mataram Disruption Under The National Honour Act
27 Jul 2026
Will Competitive Exams Deplete Delhi District Courts of Judges During Crucial Trial Proceedings This Year?
27 Jul 2026
Bombay High Court Adjourns Defamation Case Involving Union Minister Nitin Gadkari And Online Media Platforms
28 Jul 2026
Rajasthan High Court Directs State to Form Separate Wings for Crime Investigation and Security
28 Jul 2026
Gujarat High Court Upholds Constitutionality Of CGST Section 16 2 c Denying Unpaid Input Tax
28 Jul 2026
Punjab and Haryana High Court Issues New Guidelines For Legal Aid Defense Counsel System
28 Jul 2026
Government Introduces Public Examinations Amendment Bill 2026 In Lok Sabha To Curb Exam Paper Leaks
28 Jul 2026
Should Delhi High Court Increase Pecuniary Jurisdiction of District Courts to ₹10 Crore Threshold?
28 Jul 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.