Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S.
Narayani, W/o. Late Sankaran – Appellant
Versus
Koyoli Radhika, W/o. Radhakrishnan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of settlement deed and allegations of fraud. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. argument on burden of proof in fraud allegations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and findings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. final ruling of dismissal of the appeal. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
(EASWARAN S., J.)
The present appeal is preferred by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree in OS No.720/2010 on the files of the Additional Munsiff Court – I, Kozhikode, as confirmed by A.S.No.15/2015 on the files of the Additional District Court – IV, Kozhikode.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
The plaint schedule property was purchased by the original plaintiff by virtue of Karayma deed bearing No.361/1967 and thereafter, obtained purchase certificate bearing No.299/1974. While so, the original plaintiff in the year 2008 executed a settlement deed bearing No.3558/2008 in favour of the sole defendant on 01.11.2008. Thereafter, the plaintiff realised that he was misrepresented or he was coerced to execute the settlement deed and therefore on 07.04.2010, the plaintiff caused to issue a lawyers notice demanding the defendant to c
The burden of proof regarding allegations of fraud or misrepresentation in a settlement deed lies with the alleging party, and the deed remains valid if not proven otherwise.
The presumption of validity for registered documents under the Registration Act stands unless substantial evidence is provided to prove otherwise.
Registered sale deeds hold presumptive validity and must be proven void by substantial evidence, placing the burden on the party claiming undue influence or lack of consideration.
The cancellation of a gift settlement deed is invalid if the donor reserves no right to revoke it, and the burden of proving absence of undue influence lies on the beneficiary.
Settlement deed invalid without proof of attestation under Section 68, Evidence Act; scribe not attesting witness without animo attestandi.
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.
The burden of proving misrepresentation lies with the plaintiff, and mere allegations without sufficient evidence are insufficient to invalidate a registered document.
The essence of undue influence requires clear evidence of coercive circumstances affecting the validity of legal documents, which was upheld in this case.
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
