Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN, J
K.I.V.Gopinath, S/o.Late Appakutty Nair - Appellant
Versus
K.I.V.Vimala, W/o. Karunakaran Nair - Respondent
RFA NO. 256 OF 2004
Decided On : 24-02-2025
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 123 - Challenge to validity of settlement deeds - Plaintiff contended that the settlement deeds were executed fraudulently when the father was incapacitated - Court found that the execution of the deeds was not credible due to conflicting witness testimonies and declared them void. (Paras 10 - 14 )
(B) Partition - Decree for partition granted by trial court was interfered with, and the entire property was held to be partible among the parties involved. (Paras 13 - 14 )
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff challenged settlement deeds executed by his father in favor of certain defendants, claiming they were invalid due to the father's incapacity at the time of execution. The trial court initially upheld the deeds, granting partition excluding them.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found the execution of the settlement deeds to be unbelievable due to the evidence presented, thus declaring the deeds void and allowing for partition of all properties.
Issues: 1) Whether the trial court was justified in holding the settlement deeds as genuine; 2) Necessity of examining attesting witnesses for settlement deeds; 3) Need for interference in the trial court's decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the execution of settlement deeds must be credible and that conflicting evidence regarding execution leads to their invalidation. It emphasized that the trial court erred in its findings on the validity of the deeds.
Result: Appeal allowed; settlement deeds declared void and preliminary decree for partition granted.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
Credibility of Settlement Deeds: The court emphasized that settlement deeds must be credible. Conflicting evidence regarding their execution can lead to their invalidation, which can significantly impact property partition outcomes. The court found that the execution of the settlement deeds in this case was not credible due to contradictory witness testimonies [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred].
Evidence of Execution and Witness Testimony: The examination of attesting witnesses is not always mandatory unless there is a specific denial of execution. In this case, one of the witnesses (DW2) provided evidence that was inconsistent with the circumstances of execution, casting doubt on the validity of the deeds (!) (!) .
Incapacity of the Deceased at the Time of Execution: The court considered evidence suggesting that the deceased father was incapacitated due to illness at the time of executing the settlement deeds. This raised questions about the validity of the deeds, especially since the evidence of the witness regarding the execution was inconsistent and evasive (!) (!) .
Rejection of Validity of Settlement Deeds: The court ultimately held that the settlement deeds (Exts.A5 and A6) were void because their execution was not credible. The evidence indicated that the deeds were created under circumstances that did not support their validity, leading to their invalidation (!) (!) .
Property Partition: As a result of invalidating the settlement deeds, the court ruled that the entire property, including the portions covered by the deeds, was partible among the parties. The preliminary decree for partition was modified to reflect this, granting each of the plaintiff and the first six defendants an equal share, with the remaining share allocated to the other defendants (!) (!) .
Interference with Trial Court’s Judgment: The appellate court found that the trial court erred in accepting the settlement deeds as valid and in excluding the properties covered by them from partition. The appellate court reversed this decision and ordered that the entire property be partitioned (!) (!) .
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the settlement deeds were declared void, and the preliminary decree for partition was modified accordingly. The parties were permitted to proceed with the final decree based on the revised partition (!) (!) .
Costs and Proceedings: No order as to costs was made, and the matter was adjourned sine die, allowing the parties to proceed with the final decree as per the appellate judgment (!) (!) .
These points encapsulate the court’s reasoning, findings, and final decision regarding the validity of the settlement deeds and the partition of the property.
JUDGMENT :
This Regular First Appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S.No.279/2000 on the files of the Sub Court, Thalassery, challenging decree and judgment dated 24.9.2003 therein.Respondents herein are defendants in the above suit.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. Though notice served upon the other respondents, they did not appear.
3. The parties in this appeal shall be referred as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants' for brevity and convenience hereafter.
4. Plaintiff brought the suit before the trial court contending that the entire plaint schedule properties are partible among the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 6, who are siblings, and defendants 7 to 10, who are the children of their deceased sister Radha. According to the plaintiff, plaint A schedule property was owned by his father Appakutty Nair @ Krishnan Nair and the plaint B schedule property belonged to his mother Janaki Amma and both of them died on 30.7.2000 and 31.7.2000, respectively. Plaintiff’s case further is that, two gift deeds, in fact, settlement deed Nos.760/1997 and 761/1997 executed by the father Appakutty Nair @ Krishnan Nair in favour of Unnikrishnan, the 2nd defendant and defendant Nos.4 to 6, Prabhavathi, Geetha and Raghunath, are documents fraudulently created by them for the purpose of obtaining the properties at the time when the executant was not in a physical condition to execute the documents. Accordingly, the said documents sought to be declared as null and void. According to the plaintiff, the entire property is partible and plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 would get 1/8th share each and the defendants 7 to 9 jointly would get 1/8th share.
5. The 2nd defendant, who is the beneficiary of settlement deed No.760/1997, on receipt of summons from the trial court, did not appear and he was declared ex parte.
6. The 4th defendant filed written statement opposing the contentions raised by the plaintiff and strongly defending execution of settlement deed Nos.760/1997 and 761/1997, whereby defendant Nos.2 and 4 to 6 obtained title over the extent of properties covered by the same.
7. However, defendant Nos.5 and 6 filed written statement supporting the plaintiff’s case ignoring their rights based on the settlement deeds in their favour.
8. Trial court framed necessary issues. PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B3(a) were marked on the side of the defendants. Finally, the trial court held that settlement deeds executed by the father in favour of the 2nd defendant and in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 6, are genuine documents and accordingly, the trial court granted decree for partition allowing 1/8th share each as contended by the plaintiff in respect of the properties excluding the properties covered by settlement deed Nos.760/1997 and 761/1997 of Kalliasseri S.R.O.
9. On hearing both sides, the questions pose for consideration are;
1) Whether the trial court is justified in holding that Ext.A5 settlement deed No.760/1997 and Ext.A6 settlement deed No.761/1997, are genuine documents while excluding the said properties from the purview of partition?
2) Is it necessary to examine one among the witnesses in a settlement deed or a gift deed mandatorily to prove its execution?
3) Whether the decree and judgment of the trial court would require interference?
4) Reliefs and Costs.
10. Point No.2:
The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that in this case, it is mandatory to examine one among the attesting witnesses to prove the execution of a settlement deed. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, in the instant case, one among the attesting witnesses was examined as DW2 and his evidence is absolutely contrary as regards to the place where he had put his signature therein as a witness. Therefore, execution of Ext.A5 and Ext.A6 (original of Ext.A6 is Ext.B1) settlement deeds not proved,
Settlement deeds must be credible; conflicting evidence regarding execution can lead to their invalidation, impacting property partition.
Registered settlement deed proved under Evidence Act Section 68 proviso absent specific denial of execution; certified copy admissible if original lost; partition suit barred without cancelling deed.
Settlement deed invalid without proof of attestation under Section 68, Evidence Act; scribe not attesting witness without animo attestandi.
The burden of proof lies on the proponent of a Will to establish its validity, including proper execution and attestation as required by law.
The main legal point established is the requirement to prove a Will as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act, and the distinction between a Settlement deed and a....
The validity and binding nature of the settlement deed, the requirement of proof of execution under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act were centr....
In partition suits, a plaintiff is not required to seek a separate declaration of void documents, and courts must give due weight to expert testimony while scrutinizing witness credibility.
The validity of a settlement deed is upheld when properly executed, and bona fide purchasers must verify property encumbrances to maintain their status.
The necessity of proving documents under the Evidence Act is critical in partition suits, impacting the validity of claims based on unproven documents.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
