Registered attested documents like settlement deeds require proof of execution under S.68/69 Evidence Act; registration presumes no validity when challenged.

JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.116 of 2011 dated 21.08.2013 on the file of the Ist Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1141 of 2004 dated 24.03.2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The appellant is the first defendant. The deceased first respondent as plaintiff filed a suit as an indigent woman in O.S.No.321 of 2002 before the Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli (O.S.No.1141 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli) claiming the reliefs of declaration that the suit property belongs to her and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.646 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli as null and void and is not binding on the plaintiff.

3. Pending second appeal, the sole respondent / plaintiff died and her legal heirs were impleaded as respondents 2 to 4 and subsequently, the respondents 2 and 4 had died and their legal heirs were impleaded as respondents 5 to 7.

4. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the trial Court.

5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The suit property originally belonged to one Krishnasamy Naidu by virtue of a sale deed dated 15.12.1943, and ever since, he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same along with the thatched construction standing thereon. Subsequently, the said thatched construction collapsed and thereafter, the property remained as a vacant site. According to the plaintiff, the said Krishnasamy Naidu was being looked after by the plaintiff and her family members and was under their care and custody.

(b) The said Krishnasamy Naidu, out of love and affection and treating the plaintiff as his sister, executed a gift settlement deed dated 14.08.1972 in favour of the plaintiff, thereby settling the suit property upon her. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property and the said gift settlement deed was accepted and acted upon. Thereafter, the plaintiff, after obtaining possession of the suit property, put up constructions thereon, namely, a thatched house and two tiled houses bearing Door Nos.2/1, 2/1-A and 2/1-B. The said properties were assessed to tax and the plaintiff has been paying the property tax therefor. The plaintiff’s son had also obtained electricity service connection for the said houses and they have been regularly paying the electricity consumption charges.

(c) While so, on 04.10.1998, the first defendant, accompanied by her advocate and another advocate claiming to be an Advocate Commissioner, came to the suit property and took measurements thereof. Shocked by the said developments, the plaintiff raised objections before the Advocate Commissioner. Upon enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that one Balakrishna Ammal, the first defendant herein, had instituted a suit in O.S.No.646 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli, against one Lakshmikantham, the second defendant herein, seeking partition of the suit property and that a preliminary decree had already been passed therein. On coming to know of the said proceedings, the plaintiff filed an application seeking to implead herself as a party to the said suit on the ground that the defendants had no manner of right to maintain the said suit.

(d) According to the plaintiff, the first defendant is none other than the daughter of the second defendant and neither of them has any right, title or possession over the suit property. It is further her case that the defendants, in c