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.

JUDGMENT :

Easwaran S., J.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.59/2005 is the appellant in these appeals. The suit was instituted for partition and was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff had not sought for a declaration that Exts.B1 and B2 settlement deeds as void or has not sought for the cancellation of the same, though the trial court found that Exts.B1 and B2 were executed by way of fraud and impersonation. Thus plaintiff was non-suited because of his failure to seek the consequential relief. Two appeals were preferred against the findings of the trial court, one by the plaintiff and the other by defendants 5 & 6. The first appellate court in the appeal confirmed the dismissal of the suit, but reversed the findings as regards the validity of the settlement deeds Exts.B1 and B2 and found them to be genuine and hence, the present appeals.

2. Initially, the plaintiff had preferred only one appeal, that is against the dismissal of A.S.No.34/2012, which was filed by him before the Sub Court, Kannur. But later, an objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the second appeal in the light of the fact that the judgment in A.S.No.37/2012 having become final. Thus, the appellant preferred R.S.A.No.379/2025 with an application for condonation of delay, which was allowed by order dated 19.12.2025 and thus, these appeals are taken up for final hearing.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:

3.1. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Ponden Kalliani. Kalliani had one brother named Kannan and one sister named Chirutha. Kalliani died unmarried and issueless and on the death of Kalliani, her right over the plaint schedule property devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4, being the children of Chirutha. According to the plaintiff, he and defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to get 1/5 share each in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff approached the defendants for getting the plaint schedule property partitioned, but they refused the partition and hence, the suit for partition.

3.2. The defendants 5 to 7 resisted the suit by contending that, though the property belonged to Ponden Kalliani, she had executed Settlement Deed Nos.471/2003 and 472/2003 in favour of defendants 5 and 6 respectively and therefore, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants 1 to 4 have any right over the property. In the light of the contentions raised by the defendants 5 to 7, the plaintiff amended the suit raising a challenge to the execution of Document Nos.471/2003 and 472/2003. According to the plaintiff, she was totally unconscious and bedridden in the year 2003 and hence she was unable to executed any document. The defendants 5 to 7 filed additional written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff in the amended plaint.

3.3. To prove that the settlement deeds were not executed by Kalliani, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1272/2007 for summoning of documents from the Panchayath to show that Kalliani was in receipt of pension and that she had received it by affixing her thumb impression. I.A.No.1754/2007 was filed for sending the settlement deeds for expert opinion. In pursuance to the said applications, Ext.X1 series were produced by the Pallikkunnu Grama Panchayath. Exts.B1 and B2 documents were sent for comparison of the thumb impression with Ext.X1 series, and Ext.X3 expert opinion report and Exts.X4 and X4(a) comparison charts were filed by the handwriting expert of the Fingerprint and Handwriting Analysis Bureau, Calicut. According to the fingerprint expert, the thumb impression in the settlement deeds is not similar with the thumb impression in one of the acknowledgment cards produced f