Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : T.C. Suresh Menon, Jibu P. Thomas, T. Krishnanunni, Sunil J. Chakkalackal, Sreekanth K.R.
For the Respondents: K. Jayesh Mohankumar, Jacob Sebastian, Jacob Sebastian, P.R. Venketesh, Rajesh Sivaramankutty, Renjith Thampan, P.R. Venkatesh, T. Sethumadhavan.

The legal reasoning in this case primarily revolves around the admissibility and proof of public documents, specifically Gift Deeds, under the Evidence Act. The court emphasizes that certified copies of public documents, such as pleadings and written statements filed in court, are considered public records and thus fall within the scope of Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act (!) (!) (!) (!) . The court clarifies that pleadings are part of the public records maintained by the court, and as such, they are admissible as public documents, especially when certified copies are obtained in accordance with procedural rules (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

The court further discusses that objections to the admissibility of such documents on the basis of mode of proof are procedural and can be waived if not raised at the time of admission (!) (!) . It highlights that the primary issue is whether the secondary evidence, such as certified copies, was properly admitted, and since no objection was raised, the court considers the document admissible (!) .

Regarding the proof of the Gift Deeds themselves, the court notes that under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, due execution must be proved by examining at least one attesting witness. In this case, the attesting witness's testimony supported the due execution and attestation of the Gift Deeds (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . The court observes that the witnesses' long lapse of time since the execution does not necessarily undermine their credibility, especially since the witnesses testified about the circumstances of execution and identification of signatures (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

The court also considers the admission made by the original owner, Nanu, in a previous written statement regarding the execution of the Gift Deeds, which constitutes substantive evidence and supports their genuineness (!) (!) (!) . The fact that the Gift Deeds were executed in a manner consistent with legal requirements, including proper attestation and registration, further strengthens their validity (!) (!) .

Based on this comprehensive evaluation, the court concludes that the Gift Deeds were properly proved and are valid. Consequently, properties covered under these Gift Deeds are excluded from the partition, and only the remaining properties are subject to division (!) (!) . The appeal is allowed, and the trial court’s decree is modified accordingly, upholding the validity of the Gift Deeds and excluding the gifted properties from the partition process.