The burden of proof to prove the non-execution of a registered document rests upon the person who challenges the document. The presumption of execution under the Registration Act provides prima facie proof of execution, and the burden shifts to the challenger to prove non-execution.

JUDGMENT :

The decree in a suit for declaration that Ext.A6 and A8 sale deeds are null and void : For recovery of possession of plaint 'A' and B schedule properties, for partition of plaint 'C' and 'D' schedule properties and for prohibitory injunction against encumbering the properties was decreed by the trial court. The sixth defendant is in appeal.

2. An extent of 92 cents of property belonged to one Kannan Ayyappan. The parties to the suit except the sixth defendant-appellant herein, are the successors of Kannan Ayyappan being either grand children or great grand children. The sixth defendant – appellant is the assignee.

3. For an easy understanding of the relationship between the parties the genealogical tree is given hereunder :-

Kannan Ayyappan had four children Kochappan, Kunjan, Kunjipennu and Karumbi. Kochappan had five children, plaintiffs 1 to 4 and late Sidharthan. Plaintiffs 5 to 7 are the widow and children of the said Sidharthan. Kunjan died unmarried and issueless in the year 1986. Kunjipennu died in the year 1993. She had a son Thankappan. The first plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5 and the 8th plaintiff are claimed to be the wife and children of Thankappan. Defendants 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of Karumbi. On 24.10.1980, the four children of Kannan Ayyappan had executed Ext.A5 partition deed allotting 23 cents each from out of the 92 cents to each of the children.

4. According to the plaintiffs they have come to know that on 17.10.1994 Kochappan and Karumbi claimed to have jointly executed Ext.A6=Ext.B6 sale deed in favour of the second defendant conveying the entire 92 cents of property that belonged to Kannan Ayyappan to him and that under Ext.A8=Ext.B5 dated 18.04.2008 the sixth defendant claimed to have purchased the property from the second defendant. It is accordingly that the suit is filed.

5. The plaint schedule consists of 'A' to 'D' schedule properties. Plaint 'A' schedule is the 23 cents of Kochappan, 'B' schedule is the 23 cents of Kunjipennu and 'C' schedule is the 23 cents of Kunjan allotted under Ext.A5 partition. The plaint 'D' schedule is another 10 cents of property owned by Kunjan situated in different survey number.

6. The suit is filed alleging that Ext.A6 sale deed is null and void and that it was not executed by Kochappan. The subsequent sale deed Ext.A8 was also sought to be declared as void.

7. Defendants 2 and 6 opposed the suit contending that Thankappan had died unmarried and issueless and that the rights of Kunjipennu had devolved on Kochappan and Karumbi and they jointly executed Ext.A6 sale deed in favour of the second defendant. They also raised a plea of adverse possession and limitation.

8. The trial court held that the first plaintiff is the widow and defendants 4 and 5 & 8th plaintiff are the children of Thankappan. It was also found that the due execution of Ext.A8 sale deed by Kochappan and Karumbi was not proved. Accordingly Exts.A6 and A8 sale deeds were declared as null and void and does not affect the title of plaintiffs and defendants 4 and 5 in respect of the plaint 'A' to 'C' schedule properties. A decree for recovery of possession as was sought and injunction sought were granted.

9. I have heard Sri.P.K.Ravisankar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.M.N.Manmadan, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

10. The points that arises for determination are:-

(i) Is the finding of the trial court that the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Thankappan and that defendants 4 and 5 and the 8th plaintiff are their children, sustainable on the evidence on record ?

(ii) Is the finding of the trial court that the due execution of Ext.A6 Sale Deed has not been proved, correct in law ?

(iii) Was the trial court right in having negatived the plea of adverse possession and limitation?

(iv) Is the plaintiff entitled for partition of plaint 'C' schedule property without seeking the relief of recovery of possession ?

11. The plaintiff got herself examined as PW1. She produc