Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the suits, the trial court decreed O.S.No.231 of 1990 in favour of Subramanian and dismissed O.S.No.16 of 1991 filed by Pachiammal. Being aggrieved by that Pachiammal preferred appeals in A.S.No.60 and 69 of 1994 respectively before the Sub-Court, Thiruvannamalai. The lower appellate court on a consideration of the evidence on record reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court in both the suits and partly allowed the appeals. The lower appellate court upheld the validity of settlement deed, dismissed the suit for injunction filed by Subramanian on the ground that injunction cannot be granted against the co-owner, but even after holding the settlement deed as valid and the cancellation deed as invalid did not grant a decree for declaration, but directed Pachiammal to file a suit for partition. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the said appeals, Subramanian has filed the above appeals, whereas Pachiammal has not filed any appeal. Since as above said the subject matter of both the appeals is one and the same and the same witnesses have been examined in both the suits and the issues that arise for consideration are also one and the same both the above second Appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that under the partition deed Thanjiammal has got an absolute right in the 'A' schedule property along with her son-Subramanian. According to the learned counsel, the first clause in the partition deed will prevail over the latter clause and even if a life estate is given, the same can be settled by the life estate holder and as such the contra contention put forth by the appellant is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel further submitted that since Subramanian had instituted O.S.No.231 of 1990 on 25.07.1990 and an exparte order of injunction was obtained against Pachiammal, taking advantage of the same Subramanian had trespassed and taken possession. Learned counsel further submitted that all the above said aspects have not been considered by the trial court and therefore the lower appellate court by applying the correct principles of law to the facts of this case and after recording convincing reasons has set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court; the trial court has overlooked the well settled proposition of law that injunction cannot be granted against a co-owner; the lower appellate court having upheld the validity of settlement deed and having held that Pachiammal has become a co-owner with Subramanian has rightly dismissed the suit for injunction. In support of the above said submissions the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:

"There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption."

If the above said legal principle is applied to the case on hand the settlement in question being a registered document is prima facie valid in law. It is, Subramanian, who is questioning the validity of the settlement deed and therefore, the onus of proof lies only on him.

21. Both the Courts below have found that the property allotted under the partition deed in favour of Thanjiammal and her son-Subramanian is in their joint possession and the same had not been divided and therefore the trial court has observed that even assuming that the settlement deed is valid, the only remedy available to Pachiammal is to file a suit for partition. The lower appellate court though upheld the validity of the settlement deed considering the above said aspects has held that Pachiammal had to file only a suit for partition and get possession of the property settled on her. When it is found that the settlement deed is valid, Pachiammal automatically becomes the co-owner of the suit property along with Subramanian. As laid down in AIR 1996 Bombay 36 (Nagpur Bench) (referred to supra).