2000 (8) TMI 1132

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Latin Rite and as per custom in the community, both daughters and sons get equal share. The appellant also challenged the execution of the Gift Deed Exhibit B-1 and the Settlement Deed Exhibit B-2. The trial court dismissed the suit with the finding that the plaintiffs have not proved the existence of any custom, by which the male and female heirs share equally to the property of a deceased dying intestate. The claim of the property is from Joosa Mariyan Fernandez (deceased). The court held that Jaius Fernandez was not in a position to execute the documents on the alleged date i.e. the 12th of November, 1973. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed an appeal. The Appellate Court, after permitting to bring on record, two additional docu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. The existence of denial is very clear in the pleading itself. Both the High Court and the Appellate Court drew this inference based on the testimony of PW-5. The relevant portion of the High Court order is quoted hereunder: Even PW-5 had to admit that he and his brother DW-3 signed in the document on the particular day after the document was prepared at their office and that Joosa Mariyan Fernandez was present there then. 5. Similarly, relevant portion of the Appellate Court reads as under: But in cross examination he admitted that Exhibit B-2 is a settlement deed executed by Joosa Mariyan Fernandez and that the document was also prepared as per the directions of the executant DW-3 is the document writer who prepared....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onfined to bed due to paralysis. At that time he was not in a position to execute any document. In executing the documents defendants 1 and 2 forged the signature of their father after influencing the sub-registrar. 9. The aforesaid pleading leaves to no room of doubt about denial of execution of the said documents. The pleading records, that defendant nos. 1 and 2 forged the signature of the father after influencing the sub-registrar. The denial cannot be more stronger than what is recorded here. Once when there is denial made by the plaintiff, it cannot be doubted that the proviso will not be attracted. The main Part of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act puts an obligation on the party tendering any document that unless at least one....