1966 (9) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bequeathed the immovable properties to his paternal uncle's daughter, Kannammal. In January, 1952, the respondents instituted O.S. No. 24 of 1953 against several persons including Kannammal challenging inter alia the validity of the bequest made by Ponnuswami. On February 1, 1952, Kannammal died leaving as her heir the appellant who was her husband's brother's son. On February 25, 1952, the appellant executed a deed, Ex. B-1, in favour of the respondents releasing the suit properties including. certain outstanding due from third parties. On February 26, 1952, the deed was registered. On the same date, the respondents filed an application in O.S. No. 24 of 1953 asking for an order that in view of the release deed the properties be removed fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....als to this Court on a certificate granted by the High Court.   The High Court held, and in our opinion rightly, that Ex. B- 1 was not vitiated by misrepresentation and the appellant was well aware of the nature of the deed when he executed it. The appellant is somewhat deaf of hearing. But he is a wealthy and shrewd moneylender and capable of managing his affairs. He took the draft of the deed to his own lawyer and after obtaining legal advice, executed it. He himself presented the deed for registration. He received no consideration for the release, but the. motive for the release was the pending litigation and the fact that the properties originally belonged to the family of the respondents. Having regard to the release, the respo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand) and all the rights that have been accrued to me under the Hindu law. You yourself shall hold and enjoy undisputable with absolute rights under the huq release deed executed by me the entire movable and immovable properties belonging to the aforesaid Kannammal and all the outstanding due to her from outsiders. I have not received any consideration whatever for the said release deed."   The question is whether Ex. B-1 on its true construction conveyed properties to the respondents. In T. Mammo v. K. Ramunni(A.I.R.1966S.C.337,340.); this Court held :   " a registered instrument styled a release deed releasing the right, title and interest of the executant in any property in favour of the releaser f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the last four attesting witnesses gave evidence and having regard to s. 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the execution of Ex. B-1 was not proved. There is no force in this contention. The point was not raised in the Courts below. There is nothing to show that any of the last four attesting witnesses was alive, or was subject to the process of the Court during the trial of the suit. The name of one of these witnesses cannot be read, and it is not clear whether he figured as a witness at the trial. Moreover-, in his deposition, the appellant clearly admitted that he signed Ex. B-1 and the attestors attested the document. We are satisfied that Ex. B-1 was duly proved.   Counsel next submitted that a release can only enlarge and exi....