Suit challenging settlement deed barred by limitation under Articles 58/65 after 20 years; fraud unproven in fiduciary context.

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiffs in OS No.438/2008 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Muvattupuzha, a suit for declaring document No.1099/1988 as null and void, and for prohibitory injunction are the appellants herein.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The plaint schedule property was obtained by the plaintiffs and their mother Koma as A schedule of the partition deed No.1098/1988 of SRO, Muvattupuzha. The defendant being the eldest brother of the plaintiffs and the eldest son of Koma, was entrusted to the preparation of the partition deed. The plaintiffs believed their brother and signed the papers brought by him without referring to the contents. A schedule to the partition deed was set apart to the plaintiffs and the mother of the plaintiffs. Later, on enquiry, the first plaintiff came to know that a settlement deed was executed with respect to the plaint schedule property as 1099/1988 of SRO, Muvattupuzha. The plaintiffs or deceased Koma never intended to create the aforesaid document. The execution of the said document came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only on 23.08.2008 and hence the present suit. The defendant resisted the suit and contended that the plaint claim is hopelessly barred by limitation. The defendant was in no way connected with the execution of the partition deed. When the mother came to know that no property was allotted to the defendant as per the partition deed, the mother opined that some property must be given to the defendant and as such, they executed the settlement deed No.1099/1988. The plaintiffs do not have any right, title, or interest on the property. On behalf of plaintiffs, Ext.A1 to A6 documents were marked and PW1 to PW3 were examined. On behalf of the defendant, Exts.B1 to B5 documents were marked. The trial court framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Is the suit not barred by limitation?

2. Whether deed No.1099/1988 is void?

3. Whether deed No.1099/1988 is liable to be set aside?

4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for prohibitory injunction as prayed for?

5. Reliefs and costs?

After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the suit is barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the suit has been filed 20 years after the execution of the document. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved plaintiffs preferred AS No.1/2010 before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha and by judgment dated 30.09.2016, the appeal was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

3. On 26.05.2025, this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

“I. Whether the courts below are justified in not conclusively finding the character of Ext.A2 and so dismissal of the suit is legally maintainable?

II. Whether finding as to the character of a document is necessary in deciding the validity and viodability of Exhibit A2 in the above case.

III. Is the courts below justified in finding that, Exhibit A2 is valid in isolation of Exhibit A1 when both documents are contemporaneously executed.

IV. Is the court below justified in neglecting burden of proof upon defendant when the relationships between the parties are fiduciary in nature.

V. When beneficiary of a document in fiduciary relationship, is it his duty to prove due execution of impugned document dispelling all suspicious circumstances?”

4. Heard Sri.Roy Thomas (Muvattupuzha), the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri.P.B.Subramanyan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, legal heirs of the deceased defendant.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs reiterated the pleadings in the su