Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a suit for partition of ancestral property originally owned by Kuppu Udayar, who had two wives, Thangayammal and Ramayee. The plaintiffs were the daughters of Valliammal (daughter of Thangayammal), while the first defendant, Ramasamy, was the son of Ramayee. The plaintiffs sought equal division, claiming joint possession. The first defendant pleaded a Release Deed dated 22.08.1994 executed by Valliammal relinquishing her half share in his favour for Rs.40,000, thereby extinguishing the plaintiffs' claim. The Trial Court, after trial, disbelieved the Release Deed and granted a preliminary decree for partition. On appeal, the High Court examined the validity of the Release Deed. It noted that the plaintiffs did not initially deny the Release Deed in their pleadings; the fourth defendant (Valliammal's husband) was impleaded later and denied execution only after substantial evidence was recorded. The court observed that the Release Deed was a registered document, and one attesting witness (D.W.2) testified to its execution, identification of Valliammal before the Sub-Registrar, and payment of consideration. The court emphasized that a registered document carries a presumption of regularity of official acts. It found that the Trial Court erroneously placed the burden on the defendants to prove the document by expert evidence when the execution had been proved through an attesting witness. Consequently, the High Court held that the Release Deed stood proved and was binding, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to partition. The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were set aside, and the suit for partition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Burden of Proof and Pretrial Mechanism - Partition Suit and Release Deed - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLI Rule 1 - The High Court examined whether the Trial Court erred by placing the burden of proving the registered Release Deed (Ex.B6) on the defendants when it was not denied in the plaintiffs' pleadings and was supported by the testimony of an attesting witness. Held that a registered document carries a presumption of regularity, and the evidence of D.W.2 satisfied the proof of execution, rendering the Trial Court's finding erroneous (Paras 1, 12, 18-20). B) Evidence - Registered Document and Judicial Presumptions - The court held that a registered document enjoys a presumption that official acts were properly performed, and the deposition of an attesting witness about the thumb impression and consideration paid established the validity of the Release Deed. The court noted that the document was identified before the Sub-Registrar, and the denial by a co-defendant (D.W.4) did not vitiate the proof (Paras 19-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Release Deed dated 22.08.1994 was true and valid; whether the defendants proved its execution; whether the Trial Court rightly placed burden of proof on the defendants; whether attestation in another document (Ex.A5) created estoppel against the 1st defendant
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 24.03.2022 in O.S.No.242 of 2013 set aside; suit for partition dismissed. The Release Deed (Ex.B6) held proved and binding on the plaintiffs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- presumption of regularity of registered documents
- burden of proof for registered release deed
- attestation by witness discharges burden
- estoppel by attestation of document acknowledging joint family character
