Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.
Tmt. Karuppathal and Anr. – Appellants
versus
P. Ponnusamy and Ors. – Respondents
A.S.No.809 of 2009
Decided on 17.2.2021
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 91 and 92 – Partition suit – Plaintiffs, while admitting execution of sale deed, refute release deed – By filing partition suit, plaintiffs disown their own document (release deed) duly registered and presumed to be an official act performed regularly – If terms of contract reduced into writing and duly registered is sought to be excluded by oral evidence, burden is on plaintiffs to adduce evidence sufficient to exclude written evidence, as per Section 92 of Evidence Act – After executing release deed plaintiffs had cancelled the release deed without any notice to beneficiary of release deed – Later, without any further relief of declaration in respect of those deeds, suit for partition filed – Section 34 of Specific Relief Act restrains Courts from entertaining suits filed for mere declaration as to right when plaintiffs are able to seek further relief and omitted to do so – Impugned judgment and decree confirmed.
Held: The plaintiffs, while admitting the execution of sale deed Ex.A-2, refute the release deed. The recital in the release deed refers the execution of sale deed Ex.A-2 in respect of 0.91 cents and about the receipt of Rs.2,32,060/- each by the plaintiffs 1 and 2, as consideration for relinquishing their right in the remaining property, left by their father.
By filing the partition suit, the plaintiffs disown their own document namely the release deed Ex.A-4 duly registered and presumed to be an official act performed regularly. If the terms of contract reduced into writing and duly registered is sought to be excluded by oral evidence, the burden is on the plaintiffs to adduce evidence sufficient to exclude the written evidence, as per section 92 of the Evidence Act.
After executing a release deed (Ex.A-3) on 12.07.2006, the plaintiffs had cancelled the said release deed (Ex.A.4) on 17.08.2006 without any notice to the beneficiary of the release deed. Later, without any further relief of declaration in respect of those deeds, the suit for partition filed. When Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, restrains the Courts from entertaining suits filed for mere declaration as to right when the plaintiffs are able to seek further relief, and same omitted to do so. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this Court confirms the decree and judgment of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore and dismissed the Appeal with costs. (Paras 10, 12 and 15)
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.—The suit filed for partition by the daughters of Late.Palanisamy Gounder, against the sons of Palanisamy Gounder was dismissed by the Trial Court upholding the validity of the release deed Ex.A.3, executed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs.
2. By virtue of a partition deed (Ex.A.1) dated 18.06.1965 entered between Palanisamy Gounder and his brother Subbaiah Gounder, the land measuring 13.34 acres at Chittambalam Village, Palladam Taluk, was allotted to the share of Late.Palanisamy Gounder. The said Palanisamy Gounder had 2 daughters and 3 sons. One of his son by name Rathinasamy predeceased him, on 01.08.1988 leaving behind his wife and 2 daughters. On 23.02.1991, Palanisamy Gounder died leaving behind him his wife, two daughters, two sons and the legal heirs of his predeceased son Rathinasamy. Within six months wife of Palanisamy died. The legal heirs of Palanisamy Gounder and Subbaiah Gounder, jointly sold 0.91 cents of land from out of 13.34 acres to one Kandasamy on 12.07.2006. On the same day, the daughters of Palanisamy, who are the plaintiffs in the suit under appeal relinquished their 2/5th share in the property of their father Palanisamy and executed a release deed on receipt of Rs.2,32,060/- each in favour of defendants 1 to 5, who are their two brothers and the legal heirs of their deceased brother. The sale deed and the release deed were registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Palladam on 13.07.2006.
3. Alleging that, the release deed dated 12.07.2006 was obtained dishonestly by misleading them and no money was received as consideration for relinquishing the right. The plaintiffs, later cancelled the release deed on 17.08.2006 and got the cancellation deed registered. After issuing notice seeking partition, suit filed claiming 2/5th shares. The 6th defendant was arrayed as a party since, the house in the suit property was sold to the 6th defendant on 03.04.2006 by the defendants 1 to 5.
4. The defendants, in their written statement contended that, the suit property, in fact is the ancestral property of their family. Palanisamy got it under the partition deed dated 18.04.1965. Thereafter, jointly enjoyed by him and his 3 sons as joint family property. The plaintiffs got married 35 years ago. They both are well settled and living separately with their respective family. They never in joint possession of the suit property. They were given enough Sridhana. In the year 1987, there was a oral family arrangement, wherein, the properties were divided into three lots and the 3 sons of Palanisamy Gounder got one share each. The sons were asked to pay Rs.1,000/- to the parents for their maintenance. Accordingly, Palanisamy and his wife were paid Rs.3,000/- per month till their lifetime. When the defendants 1 to 5 made arrangement to sell 0.91 cents of land to Kandasamy, since there was no documentary evidence for the family arrangement held in the year 1987, the buyer for his safety wanted the plaintiffs also to sign the sale deed. The plaintiffs to join the sale deed demanded future customary seers. In the presence of Panchayathars, compromise was arrived. Accordingly, 0.91 cents of land sold jointly and for the remaining land, the plaintiffs received Rs.2,32,060/- each and executed the relinquishment deed. The alleged cancellation deed dated 17.08.2006 is void and non est in law. After voluntarily executing the release deed, receiving proper and valid consideration, the plaintiffs are not legally entitled to cancel the same. The plaintiffs never had any share in the suit property which is ancestral property, more so, after the execution of the release deed receiving Rs.2,32,060/- each.
5. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the preliminary decree for 1/5 share each in the suit properties?
(ii) Whether the family arrangement placed by the defendants 1 to 5 is t
The judgment establishes the importance of providing sufficient evidence to disprove written documents and the requirement to seek further relief when filing a suit for mere declaration of right unde....
A partition suit cannot be maintained without seeking cancellation of a registered release deed; an unchallenged release deed is valid and binding on all parties.
Section 65(c) of Evidence Act states that secondary evidence of a destroyed or lost document can be produced.
The court reaffirmed that claims regarding a release deed are barred by limitation if the parties were consenting witnesses and did not promptly raise allegations of misrepresentation or fraud.
Unregistered documents affecting property rights are inadmissible unless they meet statutory requirements, reinforcing co-ownership in property disputes.
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
