The appeal was dismissed for lack of substantial legal questions, reinforcing the integrity of registered documents.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs, non-suited concurrently in a suit for partition, have come up in the present appeal. The plaintiffs are the daughters, and defendants 1 and 3 are the sons of late Ammukutty. The 2^nd defendant is the wife of the 1^st defendant.

2. On 7.6.2004, late Ammukutty, the mother, died intestate, and the request of the plaintiffs for partitioning the property was declined by the 1^st defendant and hence the suit. The defendants 1 to 3 resisted the suit, contending that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share over the plaint schedule property and that late Ammukutty had created various documents right from 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997 and 1998 transferring various extents of property to the defendants. Thus, it is contended that in the light of these registered documents, the plaintiffs cannot claim partition of the property. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, disputed the execution of the documents by denying the signature of late Ammukutty, and contending that their mother was not in a proper state of mind while executing the documents, and therefore, the documents are not binding upon them. The defendants, however, adduced evidence to prove the execution of the documents and also sought permission to produce various other documents from the financial institutions with which the property was created as security for various credit facilities availed by them. One among the properties was also sold in favour of the 4^th defendant. Thus, the defendants 1 to 3 resisted the plea by contending that the document executed by late Ammukutty has been acted upon and that the properties have been mutated at the hands of the respective holders. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs cannot be granted and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred A.S. No.87 of 2014 before the Additional District Court-IV, Thrissur. The first appellate court, by judgment and decree dated 2.8.2025, concurred with the findings of the trial court, and dismissed the appeal and hence this regular second appeal.

3. Heard Sri. S.V. Balakrishna Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. P.B. Subramanyan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri. Sohail Ahammed Harris, the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent, Smt. Lakshmy S., the learned counsel representing Sri. Jithesh Menon, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 and Sri. C.D. Dileep, the learned counsel appearing for the 10th respondent.

4. Though, the learned Senior Counsel vehemently pointed out that the facts pleaded in the suit and the evidence adduced by the parties would no doubt show that the deceased Ammukutty was not in a position to execute the registered documents and if, as a matter of fact, the deceased Ammukutty was not in a proper mental state to execute those documents, no right would enure to the benefit of the defendants and thus the claim for partition was perfectly maintainable. He would point out that the mother of the plaintiffs was blind at the time of execution and therefore she was not in a position to understand the nature and contents of the documents.

5. On an anxious consideration of the submissions of learned Senior Counsel, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. The incapacity of the mother of plaintiff to execute the documents in question cannot be gone into because, the plaintiffs failed to prove any evidence to substantiate their plea that the deceased Ammukutty was blind and was not in a position to understand the contents of the