The burden of proving misrepresentation lies with the plaintiff, and mere allegations without sufficient evidence are insufficient to invalidate a registered document.

JUDGMENT

The legal heirs of the original plaintiff have come up in the appeal aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Munsiff Court, Adoor in O.S. No.486 of 2003, as well as the District Court, Pathanamthitta, in A.S. No.7 of 2007.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

As per the averments in the plaint, the plaint schedule property having an extent of 9.37 Ares belonged to the plaintiff, which she obtained as per the partition deed No.721/1975. The plaintiff had constructed a building in the plaint schedule property about 28 years back. The defendant, her son, was working at Bombay. When he came back from Bombay, he started to reside in the building in the plaint schedule property along with his family with the consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had given her properties, except the plaint schedule property, to her children by reserving her life interest over the property. When the defendant began to take yield from the properties without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff in the guise of the life interest of the plaintiff over the property, the same was questioned and objected to by the plaintiff. Subsequently, at some point of time, in the year 1999, the plaintiff was dispossessed from the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff informed her claim to her another son and, on enquiry, it was revealed that a settlement deed was executed by her on 20.11.1999 in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff never intended to convey the property to the defendant. Since the plaintiff is an illiterate person, she was not aware of the execution deed and hence the suit for cancellation. The defendant entered appearance and contested the matter. The defendant contended that the suit was not filed by the petitioner voluntarily, and it was filed due to the compulsion of the sisters and brothers of the defendant. It is contended that the defendant left his job at Bombay and came back to his native place in August 2000 due to the request of the plaintiff, and thereafter, he was residing in the plaint schedule property by renovating the building. The settlement deed was executed by the plaintiff with full knowledge about its consequences. On behalf of plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A4 documents were produced, and PW1 to PW3 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B3 documents were produced, and DW1 and DW2 were examined. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, found that the plea raised by the plaintiff that the settlement deed was vitiated on account of fraud and misrepresentation is not proved. The trial court also found that during the cross-examination of the plaintiff as PW1, it was specifically admitted by her that the defendant was at Bombay at the time of execution of the document. But then, after giving such evidence, she stated that the defendant was at her residential house at the time of execution of the document. This discrepancy in the oral testimony of the plaintiff led the trial court to conclude that the case projected by her is not genuine, and accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No.7 of 2007 before the District Court, Pathanamthitta. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff passed away, and the legal heirs were impleaded. The first appellate court, on reappreciation of the evidence, concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal.

3. On 28.10.2025, this Court a