Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) 2013 (1) TLNJ 296 (Civil) (P.Sivabushanam vs. Sivamani) (v) The settlement deed is a document which requires attestation by at least two witnesses (under Section 23 of the Transfer of Property Act). In order to prove the document under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, at least one attesting witness ought to have been examined. When such is a requirement, the plaintiffs ought to have examined atleast one of the attesting witnesses and that has not been done. 17. As the settlement deed is void, there is no necessity to file a suit to set aside the same. There is no proof to show that the settlor understood the contents of the settlement deed and then signed it or put thumb impression upon it. Therefore, there is no valid execution of document in the eye of law. The registration of the document does not cloth the document with sanctity, when the execution itself is not proved.

(ix) AIR 1972 Mad. 413 (Rathna Naidu vs. Kanniammal)

14. Veeraswami, J.(as he then was) took into consideration the fact that the settlement deed reserved nothing for the first defendant who had completely denuded himself of all his properties by executing the settlement deed. After elaborately discussing all these aspect, Veeraswami, J.(As he then was) held in that case that the donee has not probed the settlement deed and as such the settlement deed is void. The next case cited by Mr. (Parthasarathi Iyengar is Wajid Khan v. Ewas Ali Akhan, (1886) ILR 13 Cal 545. In that case it has been held that- "This transaction was within the well-recognised principle that every onus is thrown upon a person filling a fiduciary character towards another of showing conclusively that he has acted honestly, and bona fide without influencing the donor, who has acted independently of him".