Registered relinquishment deeds carry a presumption of validity, while claims of fraud and forgery regarding an unregistered family settlement must be supported by evidence, including expert analysis.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (ORAL)--Appellant impugns order dated 07.10.2021, whereby the application of the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 has been dismissed and no interim injunction granted in favour of the appellant.

2. Respondents No.1 and 2 are the mother and brother, respectively, of the appellant. The case of the appellant is that the subject suit properties were owned by the father of the appellant and respondent No.2, late Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma, who expired intestate on 10.06.2015.

3. It is contended that thereafter on 14.08.2015, a settlement deed/memorandum of family settlement was arrived at between the parties, whereby it was agreed that both appellant and respondent No.2 shall relinquish their shares in the properties in favour of the mother, who would thereafter transfer one property each to appellant and respondent No.2 after payment of the loan taken against the properties. It is contended that some blank documents were got signed by respondent No.2.

4. It is the admitted case of the appellant that on 21.08.2015, registered relinquishment deeds were executed by the appellant and respondent No.2, relinquishing their respective shares in favour of the mother for the properties.

5. It is contended that after the loans on the properties were discharged, respondents changed their mind and started to pressurize the appellant to vacate the property in his possession.

6. Subject suit has been filed by the appellant inter alia seeking a declaration that the relinquishment deeds are null and void and seeking enforcement of the settlement deed/memorandum of family settlement dated 14.08.2019 and further seeking partition of the suit properties.

7. By the impugned order, the trial court has noticed that the respondents in their written statement have contended that the relinquishment deeds were executed out of natural love and affection and without any force or pressure. It is also contended that the alleged that settlement deed/memorandum of family settlement dated 14.08.2019 is a forged and fabricated document and signatures of the respondents on the same are forged and fabricated.

8. It is further contended that the relinquishment deeds, which were executed subsequently, do not even refer to the alleged family settlement and as such the settlement deed/memorandum of family settlement dated 14.08.2019 is ex-facie forged and fabricated.

9. It is further the case of the respondents that the mother has initiated proceeding under the Senior Citizens Act seeking eviction of the appellant from the subject property, in which eviction orders have been passed. It is informed that there is a stay from the appellate court against the eviction order.

10. Trial court has further noticed that the admitted case of the parties is that the relinquishment deeds were executed by the appellant. However, at the time of arguments before the Trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant had sought to urge that the relinquishment deeds had been prepared by fraud and forgery.

11. The trial court has held that the relinquishment deeds are registered documents, which were duly registered before the Sub- Registrar.

12. It may be noted at this stage that the relinquishment deeds even bear the photographs of the parties including the appellant, which photograph was taken at the time of registration of the documents at the Sub-Registrar's office. Prima facie, it can safely be held that the Relinquishment deeds were executed by the appellant.

13. On the other hand, the settlement deed/memorandum of family settlement is an unregistered document and is not even attested by any witnesses.

14. The trial court has rightly held that a legal presumption arises about the validity of the relinquishment deed whereas there is doubt about the validity and execution of the family settlement propounded by the appellant.

15. It may also be further noticed that even though respondents have disputed their signatures on the se