Non-Production of Original Does Not Invalidate Family Settlement Signed by All Parties—Once Signed, It Is Binding: Kerala High Court

“Adverse Inference Drawn When Defendant Avoids Witness Box—Silence Cannot Override Signature on Settlement”:  In a notable judgment Kerala High Court reversed a trial court’s rejection of a partition and injunction suit based on a disputed family settlement deed. The Court held that once a family settlement is signed by all legal heirs, it becomes enforceable, and technical lapses such as partial partition or absence of the original document do not vitiate its legal force, particularly when the opposing party fails to enter the witness box.

The ruling delivered by Justice C. Pratheep Kumar sets an important precedent on the enforceability of family arrangements, evidentiary burden in civil suits, and scope of injunctions in family property disputes.

“Exhibit A1 Is the Original—Multiple Originals Can Exist in Family Settlements if Signed by Parties”

The main legal issue concerned the validity and enforceability of a family settlement agreement dated 13.12.2003 (Exhibit A1) which was not the ‘original’ in the strict sense, but a version bearing signatures of all parties on the last page. The trial court had rejected this version due to lack of signatures on all pages.

The High Court rejected the lower court’s technical view, stating: “Exhibit A1 cannot be treated as secondary evidence as it was prepared simultaneously with the original and contains original signatures of all parties on the last page… it is original in all respects and enforceable.”

“There is no rule of law that the signature of all parties must appear on every page—particularly when the final page with terms and signatures is intact and undisputed.”

The Court cited witness testimony of PW3 (the mediator) who stated that the original was handed over to the 3rd defendant, and noted the absence of any cross-examination or denial from the defendant. Thus, the Court treated the disappearance of the original as deliberate suppression.

Partition Among Heirs of Late C.P. Mathew

The suit was originally filed by the widow and daughters of Late C.P. Mathew seeking partition of ancestral property. A prior partition suit had failed due to a will allegedly executed by the deceased.

Following this, a family settlement was reached among the legal heirs, dividing properties through mutual consent. However, later disputes arose, with the widow of a predeceased son (3rd defendant) contesting the agreement's validity and refusing to honour it.

The trial court dismissed both the partition (OS 232/2006) and injunction suits (OS 193/2008), citing non-production of the original settlement and partial partition.

“Non-Appearance in Witness Box Is Fatal—Adverse Inference Must Follow”

The Court emphasized the importance of personal testimony in civil litigation:

“The 3rd defendant, who also represented her minor children, did not step into the witness box… this absence is fatal and an adverse inference must be drawn.”

“When a party does not offer themselves for cross-examination, the presumption is that their case is untrue.”

Relying on Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimham, the Court reaffirmed: “It is well settled that silence in court proceedings when under challenge indicates tacit admission, and procedural conduct cannot override signed documents.”

“Partial Partition Argument Is Invalid—Daughters Had No Claim Over Property Set Aside for Sons”

Another key legal argument raised was that the suit was bad for partial partition, as not all properties of Late C.P. Mathew were included.

Rejecting this contention, the Court held:

“As per the family settlement, the widow and daughters were only given rights over two specified items, while a quarry and garden land were exclusively allotted to sons. The plaintiffs cannot be faulted for excluding properties in which they had no legal or agreed share.”

Thus, the High Court made it clear that where exclusion is by prior agreement, a suit for partial partition is not barred.

“Family Settlement Need Not Be Supported by Monetary Consideration—Forbearance from Litigation Is Sufficient”

The trial court had also questioned the absence of consideration in the family settlement. The High Court overruled this, stating:

“The decision of the plaintiffs not to appeal against an earlier dismissal of partition suit and to abandon multiple litigations was itself valid consideration. Forbearance from asserting legal rights constitutes a lawful and binding consideration.”

“Possession Taken and Draft Partition Deeds Prepared—Refusal to Execute Is Breach”

The plaintiffs had even produced draft partition deeds and land sketches (Exhibits A2 to A5) prepared post-settlement. The Court found that:

“Even though defendants disputed Exhibit A1, they did not challenge the authenticity of the draft deeds and plans, which were prepared pursuant to it.”

The Court also noted that possession was already taken by parties as per the settlement, and hence subsequent obstruction by the 3rd defendant amounted to a clear violation of the agreement.

Decree for Partition and Injunction Granted

Concluding the appeal, the High Court:

• Set aside the trial court’s dismissal of the suits.
• Granted preliminary decree for partition based on Exhibit A1 to A5.
• Directed that final decree be drawn by the trial court with liberty to adjust sketches and reservation of equities.
• Granted permanent injunction against the 3rd defendant in OS 193/2008 from interfering in possession of the quarry property.
• Denied damages, noting the close relationship between parties.

The Kerala High Court’s judgment stands as a significant reaffirmation of the binding nature of family settlements, even when formal technicalities (such as absence of the original document or full signatures on each page) are lacking—provided that the agreement is proved to be genuine and voluntarily executed.

Moreover, the judgment emphasizes adverse inference against evasive litigants, upholds the sanctity of mediated agreements, and affirms that partition suits arising from acknowledged family arrangements are maintainable.

Date of Decision: 19 September 2025