Registered settlement deeds presume validity, requiring substantial proof for contestation. Estoppel cannot bar claims if not raised in trial; challenges to such deeds must comply with statutory limitation periods.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

1. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara in OS No.180/2006, a suit for declaration, recovery of possession and injunction and the II Addl. District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the plaintiffs have come up in RSA No.1337/2012; while the counterclaim plaintiff (defendant) in that suit approached this Court in RSA No.108/2013 aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment and decree in the counterclaim.

2. The facts for disposal of the cases will be as narrated in RSA No.1337/2012, since the said appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs.

3. The plaintiffs claim that they are the only legal heirs entitled to inherit the property of one Nesamony, who is the brother of the defendant. During the lifetime of Nesamony, four settlement deeds numbered as 85/98, 155/01, 153/01 & 154/01 and a release deed No.35/02 and an original Will No.2/98 were executed. The defendant, sister of the plaintiffs’ father, filed OS No.644/86 for partition, which was decreed, and the property was partitioned. Thereafter, Nesamony was in possession of his share. The plaintiffs were born to one Dasamma, in the wedlock of one Simson. After the death of Simson, Nesamony married the plaintiffs’ mother, Dasamma. Late Nesamony executed Exts.A3 & A4 settlement deeds dated 21.1.1998 in favour of the 4^th plaintiff and plaintiffs 1 to 3, respectively, and Exts.A5 and A6 settlement deeds dated 5.2.2001 in favour of the 2^nd and the 3^rd plaintiffs, respectively. OS No.152/01 was instituted on 19.2.2001 by late Nesamony for declaration of title and putting up of boundaries against the defendant and while so, a release deed was alleged to have been executed in favour of the plaintiffs on 9.1.2002 (Ext.A23). On 31.5.2002, OS No.152/2001 was decreed, and on 10.12.2002, an execution petition was filed as EP No.417/2002. On 27.4.2003, Nesamony passed away and EA No.353/2003 was preferred by the appellants herein for impleading themselves as the legal heirs of the deceased decree holder Nesamony. On 28.11.2003, the defendant also preferred EA No.938/2003 seeking herself to be impleaded as the legal heir of the deceased Nesamony. On 12.1.2004, the application preferred by the appellants was dismissed and the application preferred by the defendant was allowed. Challenging the common order dated 12.01.2004 in EA Nos.353/2003 and 938/2003, WP(C) No.17393/2004 was filed. By judgment dated 29.6.2004, this Court allowed the writ petition, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, and thereafter a fresh order was passed on 17.3.2005. The said order was questioned in WP(C) No.14478/2005 and by judgment dated 11.10.2006, the writ petition was closed with the observation that, the appellants are at liberty to institute a fresh suit for declaration of title and if they succeed, the benefit accrued to the petitioner in EA No.938/2003 will enure to them. Accordingly, the present suit, OS No.180/2006, was filed. On 24.9.2007, the plaintiffs sought amendment of the reliefs to include recovery of possession, and the defendant filed an additional written statement incorporating a counterclaim seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction. Subsequently, IA No.789/2009 was preferred by the plaintiffs to exclude the counterclaim from the written statement, which was dismissed by order dated 15.10.2009. The defendant resisted the suit, contending that the executing court in an earlier proceeding had already found that the settlement deeds relied on by the plaintiffs are fabricated documents and therefore, the same are not binding on her. If the plaintiffs are excluded, the defendant is