Madras HC | Daughters filed partition suit while disowning their registered release deed. As per S. 92 of Evidence Act, burden to adduce evidence sufficient to exclude written evidence will be on the daughters? Read on

Madras High Court: G. Jayachandran, J., the instant suit was filed with regard to the relief of partition and permanent injunction from alienating or encumbering the suit property.

Instant suit was filed for partition by daughters of Late Palanisamy Gounder against his sons was dismissed by the trial court while upholding the validity of the release deed executed by the plaintiffs.

Aggrieved by the above decision of Trial Court, the appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs.

Daughters of Palanisamy, who are the plaintiffs in the suit under appeal relinquished their 2/5th share in the property of their father Palanisamy and executed a release deed on receipt of Rs 2,32,060/- each in favour of defendants 1 to 5, who are their two brothers and the legal heirs of their deceased brother. The sale deed and the release deed were registered.

It was alleged that the above-stated release deed was obtained dishonestly by misleading the daughters and no money was received.

Plaintiffs, later cancelled the release deed and got the cancellation deed registered. After issuing notice seeking partition, suit filed claiming 2/5th shares.

Point for determination:

Whether the Trial Court finding about the validity of the release deed to dismiss the partition suit is sustainable under law and facts?

It was contended by the plaintiffs that they were criminally coaxed to sign the documents. In the cancellation deed, the plaintiffs were made to affix a thumb impression and signature without explaining to them about the nature of the document. Along with this, they were not paid any amount but the deed was executed.

Plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the release deed only when they applied for an encumbrance certificate.

It was expressed that by filing the partition suit, the plaintiffs disowned their own document namely the release deed duly registered and presumed to be an official act performed regularly.

If the terms of contract reduced into writing and duly registered is sought to be excluded by oral evidence, the burden is on the plaintiffs to adduce evidence sufficient to exclude the written evidence, as per section 92 of the Evidence Act.

Sections 91 and 92 proviso (i) of Indian Evidence Act, clearly lay down the rule when written evidence could be excluded by oral evidence is permissible.

Plaintiffs could not prove that the release deed was executed by misleading them and the consideration in the release deed was not aid to them.

Bench held that without declaring further relief to declare the sale deed in favour of 6th defendant and release deed as null and void, the suit for partition declaring the right in the suit property was prohibited under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act:

  1. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right:— Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.

Plaintiffs after executing a release deed, cancelled the same without any notice to the beneficiary of the release deed and later without any further relief of declaration in respect of those deeds, the suit for partition was filed. When Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, restrains the Courts from entertaining suits filed for mere declaration as to right when the plaintiffs are able to seek further relief, and same omitted to do so.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this Court confirmed the decree and judgment of the Additional District Court.[Tmt. Karuppathal v. P. Ponnusamy, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 677, decided on 12-02-2021]

One comment

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.