The Madras High Court has set aside a preliminary decree for partition, ruling that a suit for partition simpliciter is not maintainable when a registered release deed stands in the way, unless there is a specific prayer to declare the document void or for its cancellation. The Division Bench, comprising Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, held that a registered instrument cannot be ignored or treated as non-est merely on allegations of misrepresentation without specific pleadings and adherence to the law of limitation.
The core legal issue before the Court was whether a suit for partition is maintainable without seeking a declaration to cancel a registered release deed executed years prior, and whether such a suit is barred by limitation if filed beyond three years from the date of knowledge. The High Court held that a registered release deed carries a legal presumption of validity. Consequently, a suit for partition ignoring such a deed, without a prayer to set it aside within the limitation period, is not maintainable. The Court set aside the trial court’s decree and allowed the appeals of the defendants.
Background of the Case
The case pertains to the estate of Late Krishnasami Pillai, who died intestate on August 4, 1990, leaving behind his mother, wife, five daughters, and one son, Ananthagopal (the 1st defendant). The plaintiffs (the wife and daughters) filed a suit (O.S.No.6 of 2007) before the Additional District Judge, Puducherry, Karaikkal, seeking partition and separate possession of their 1/7th share.
The plaintiffs contended that after Krishnasami Pillai’s death, the 1st defendant obtained a release deed dated October 8, 1990, from them by misrepresentation, claiming it was a power of attorney necessary to manage businesses at Mahe and Seychelles. They alleged they discovered the nature of the document only in November 2006.
The trial court allowed the suit on March 30, 2010, holding the release deed void due to misrepresentation and fraud. It further held that the subsequent purchasers (defendants 3 and 4) were not bona fide purchasers. Aggrieved by this, the 1st defendant and the purchasers filed appeals (A.S.Nos. 708, 817 of 2010 & A.S.No. 579 of 2022).
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellants (Defendants):
- The release deed was a registered document executed in 1990 and acted upon for many years.
- The plaintiffs admitted the execution of the deed but failed to seek a specific prayer for declaration to set it aside.
- The suit was barred by limitation because the 1st plaintiff (PW.1) admitted in her testimony that she knew about the release deed in 2001, yet the suit was filed only in 2007.
- Mere allegations of misrepresentation without specific details as required under Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC are insufficient to invalidate a registered document.
The Respondents (Plaintiffs):
- The release deed was non-est in the eye of the law as it was obtained under suspicious circumstances and by misrepresentation (claimed to be a Power of Attorney).
- The deed included the interest of minors without court permission, making it void.
- Since the document was void ab initio, they could ignore it and seek partition without a separate prayer for cancellation.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench formulated the point for determination as: “Whether after execution of release deed, the suit for partition simpliciter without relief for cancellation of the registered release deed is maintainable?” and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
1. On Limitation and Knowledge
The Court noted a critical admission by the 1st plaintiff (PW.1), who deposed that she became aware of the release deed in 2001 while visiting Seychelles. The Court observed:
“The trial Court failed to consider that Ex.B26 had been acted upon and third party interests has come into existence. The plea of the plaintiffs that they were not aware of the release deed for 16 years is itself false and contrary to their admission.”
The Bench held that under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument must be filed within three years from the date of knowledge. Since the knowledge was admitted in 2001, the suit filed in 2007 was “hopelessly barred by limitation.”
2. On Validity of Registered Documents and Pleadings
The Court emphasized that the registration of an instrument carries a presumption of validity under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. To rebut this, specific pleadings regarding fraud are required under Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC.
“What law under Order VI Rule 4 of C.P.C., required is pleading of misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust or undue influence must contain dates and particular exemplified.”
Citing the judgment in Celestine vs. Ebisal (2019), the Court reiterated that mere vague allegations are insufficient to nullify a registered document. The Court stated:
“In the given factual matrix, suit for partition, ignoring the release deed executed in the year 1990 (08.10.1990) is badly hit by Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. The trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the plaintiffs have consciously omitted to seek declaration, since that relief is beyond the period of limitation.”
3. On Minors’ Interest
Regarding the contention that the release deed involved minors and was void for lack of court permission, the Bench referred to the Full Bench decision in Sankaranarayana Pillai vs. Kandasamia Pillai (1956). The Court observed:
“When the minor was co-nominee a party to a sale deed or other document of alienation by a guardian which he seeks to set aside, it is not enough for him to merely sue for possession but he must have also prayed for cancellation of the document and pay due Court fee for the said prayer.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the trial court’s judgment suffered from “irrational reasoning and willful omission to apply the law.” The Bench held that the release deed (Ex.B26) is valid, and consequently, the subsequent transfers to the 3rd and 4th defendants are also valid.
Outcome:
- The judgment and decree in O.S.No.6 of 2007 were set aside.
- All three appeals (A.S.Nos. 708, 817 of 2010 & 579 of 2022) were allowed.
- No order as to costs.
