The absence of specific property description in a release deed does not invalidate it if the intention of the parties is clear, and failure to specifically deny execution does not necessitate examination of attesting witnesses.

JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.13 of 2012, dated 14.03.2017, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Palani, reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.33 of 2008, dated 14.12.2011, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in their original suit.

3. The second defendant is the appellant. The respondents 1 and 2 as plaintiffs have filed the above suit against the appellant and the third respondent for partiton and allotment of 2/3 shares in the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are the sisters of the first defendant. It is not in dispute that the suit properties originally belonged to one Kalianna gounder – paternal grandfather of the plaintiffs and the first defendant ancestrally, that the family members of Kalianna gounder entered into a registered partition dated 25.06.1968, wherein the properties shown as “B” schedule properties therein including the suit properties in the present suit were allotted to the share of Thangavel gounder – father of the plaintiffs and the first defendant and that the said Thangavel gounder died intestate in the year 1992.

4. The case of the plaintiffs is that after the death of their father – Thangavel gounder, the first defendant was managing the suit properties and giving share of income to the plaintiffs, that the second plaintiff has filed a suit against the first defendant in respect of some of their properties in O.S.No.161 of 2007 and hence, the first defendant has become inimical towards the plaintiffs and on that account, the first defendant has made a claim that he is going to alienate the suit properties, that when the plaintiffs applied for encumbrance certificate, they came to know about the sale deed dated 01.09.2005 allegedly executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and other encumbrances made, that the first defendant in the said sale deed has stated that the plaintiffs and their mother have executed a registered release deed dated 06.05.1994 in favour of the first defendant and on that basis, he had become the absolute owner of the properties including the suit properties, that the plaintiffs came to know that while executing the settlement deed in favour of their mother by the first defendant, the first defendant under the pretext of obtaining attesting signatures from the plaintiffs has created the release deed, that the plaintiffs were constrained to send a legal notice dated 05.12.2007 to the defendants demanding partition of the suit properties, that though the first defendant has received the same, he has not chosen to send any reply nor complied with the notice demand, that the second defendant has sent a reply dated 11.12.2007 with false and untenable allegations and that therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the present suit claiming partition and allotment of their 1/3 share each in the suit properties.

5. The first defendant before the trial Court and the first appellate Court, had remained exparte.

6. The defence of the second defendant is that the plaintiffs along with their mother executed a release deed dated 06.05.1994 relinquishing their rights in the joint family properties in favour of the first defendant, that the contentions of the plaintiffs that they have not executed the release deed and that when they affixed their signatures for attesting the settlement deed dated 06.05.1994 executed by the first defendant in favour of their mother, the first defendant has misused the same are false and incorrect, that the second defendant, on proper legal advise, scrutiny of documents, purchased an extent of 3 Acres in item No.1 of the suit property, vide sale deed dated 14.09.2005 and the remaining extent of 2.93 Acres, vide sale deed dated 04.02.2008 for valuable consideration and since the date of sales, the second de