The court affirmed the validity of a Release Deed executed by a legal heir, emphasizing the burden of proof lies on the party disputing its execution.

JUDGMENT :

N.Sathish Kumar, J.

Aggrieved over the preliminary decree dividing the suit property into two equal shares by metes and bounds and allotting the plaintiffs and 4^th defendant together one such share, the present appeal came to be filed.

2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Kuppu Udayar had two wives, namely, Thangayammal and Ramayee. Thangayammal had a daughter by name Valliammal, who died leaving behind plaintiffs 1 to 3 as surviving legal heirs. Ramayee, the other wife of Kuppu Udayar had one son called Ramasamy, who is the 1^st Defendant. The defendants 2 and 3 are the son and daughter of the 1^st defendant respectively.

4. According to the plaintiffs, Kuppu Udayar died on 30.12.1983 and Valliammal, one of the wives of Kuppu Udayar and mother of plaintiffs died on 26.08.2004 and the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and the 1^st defendant and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs and the 4^th defendant are together entitled to half share and the 1^st defendant is entitled to half share in the suit property. As the 1^st defendant had not come forward to effect partition and he made arrangement to alienate and encumber the suit property, the suit in O.S.No.242 of 2013 has been filed before the I Additional District Court, Salem.

5. In the written statement, while admitting the relationship, it is stated that Kuppu Udayar died on 30.12.1983, leaving behind the 1^st defendant and his sister Valliammal. It is the specific case of the 1^st defendant that on 22.08.1994, Valliammal had executed a Release Deed, relinquishing her half right over the suit schedule mentioned property in favour of the 1^st defendant after receiving a consideration of Rs.40,000/-. Ever since the date of execution, of the said Release Deed, the 1^st defendant is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property and the plaintiffs had suppressed the material facts of the Release Deed. Hence, it is denied that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property.

6. The 2^nd defendant has also filed a written statement as that of the 1^st defendant, stating that the 1^st defendant had executed a Settlement Deed dated 19.08.2013 in Doc.No.4044 of 2013 in respect of the half share, which was earlier relinquished by Valliammal and the remaining half share was partitioned among the legal heirs of the 1^st defendant on 19.08.2013 and registered as Doc.No.4823 of 2013 on the file of SRO, Ayodhiyapattinam and both the deeds had already been acted upon.

7. The 3^rd defendant has also filed a written statement adopting the same narration of facts as that of the 2^nd defendant.

8. The 4^th defendant filed a written statement after the 1^st defendant was examined in the case. According to the 4^th defendant, he and his wife were not living in a place shown in the Release Deed, which is 10 kms away from that place, as they had vacated the place mentioned in the alleged Release Deed several years before 1994. According to him, he and his wife Valliammal did not go to the office of the Sub Registrar, Ayothiyapattanam on 22.08.1994 or on any other date to register any such document. Thus, Valliammal did not execute any Release Deed in favour of the 1^st defendant at any point of time.

9. The Trial Court, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, framed the following issues:

i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary decree as prayed for?

ii) Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the Release Deed dated 22.08.1994?

iii) Whether the 1^st defendant is the abs