The court upheld the validity of a release deed based on evidence of mental capacity at execution, dismissing challenges to its authenticity due to the deceased's health conditions.

JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.6533 of 2019, dated 28.04.2025, granting preliminary decree of 2/3^rd share to the plaintiffs, the unsuccessful defendant has filed the above Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The 1^st plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. They are the sons of one Ranganatha Mudaliar. The suit properties were originally owned by the said Ranganatha Mudaliar. The said Ranganatha Mudaliar died intestate on 04.04.1979 leaving behind his (i) wife Swarnabai Ammal, (ii) the plaintiff and (iii) Miss.R.Vatsala Kumari, his daughter who remained spinster during her lifetime and (iv) the defendant as legal heirs. The 1^st plaintiff’s mother Swarnabai Ammal died intestate on 08.01.1993. After the death of the 1^st plaintiff’s father and mother, the 1^st plaintiff, the defendant and their sister Vatsala Kumari became entitled to 1/3rd share in the properties of their father. The 1^st plaintiff was living in the First Floor in the house while, the sister Vatsala Kumari was residing in the Hall of the Ground Floor as well with the plaintiff upstairs for food and sleep, while the defendant was occupying the remaining portion of the Ground Floor. The remaining area was jointly used by all the co-owners of the same.

4. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the 1^st plaintiff has paid for the electricity service connection and water connection. The defendant did not pay any amount including the water tax, etc. The 1^st plaintiff and his sister Vatsala Kumari issued a legal notice as against the defendant demanding their 1/3rd share towards the expenses, however, the same was not paid by the defendant. The entire expenses of the properties were met by the 1^st plaintiff. During the lifetime of Vatsala Kumari, she was taken care of by the 1^st plaintiff and his family members. During her lifetime, the sister Vatsala Kumari, out of love and affection, released her 1/3rd share in favour of the 1^st plaintiff by Release Deed dated 17.04.2007 registered as Doc.No.799 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Adyar. The sister Vatsala Kumari died on 01.06.2007. Therefore, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that, by virtue of the Release Deed, the 1^st plaintiff is entitled to 2/3rd share in the 1^st item of the suit property. Hence, the 1^st plaintiff filed the present suit for partition as against his brother, viz., the defendant. The 1^st plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were substituted as plaintiffs 2 to 4.

5. The defendant contested the suit by filing his written statement. Admitting that the properties were purchased by their father, it is the contention of the defendant that the 1^st plaintiff was residing in the First Floor and after filing the present suit, the 1^st plaintiff vacated and was residing in a nearby place, however, the defendant continues to reside in the Ground Floor. The defendant’s only sister Vatsala Kumari died as a spinster on 01.06.2007. Therefore, it is the contention of the defendant that he is also entitled to equal share. The defendant’s sister Vatsala Kumari fell sick on 17.02.2007 and she was diagnosed with cancer. She was admitted in Billroth Hospital in a very serious condition and she was unconscious for nearly three months (March, April & May, 2007) and she died on 01.06