Suspicious Circumstances Undermine Registered Release Deed: Madras High Court Invalidates Document Signed by Thumb Impression of Infirm Defendant

"A document purportedly executed by a person in a state of mental and physical frailty, surrounded by suspicious circumstances, does not command the presumption of validity despite its registration under the law," observed Justice R. Sakthivel.

Madras High Court dismissed a second appeal in a long-standing family partition dispute, affirming concurrent decisions by the Trial and First Appellate Courts. The litigation revolved around the partition of ancestral property, allegations of fraud, and the validity of a contested Release Deed (Ex-A.5). The Court upheld the findings that the deed was executed under undue influence, lacked free consent, and thus, was null and void.

The plaintiffs, S. Thirupurasundari and her children, filed a suit seeking partition of a family property in Adyar, Chennai, claiming their rightful share following the death of Thirupurasundari's husband, Senthil. The primary defendant, L. Veeraiyan, the brother of the plaintiffs' mother-in-law (12th defendant), contended that the 12th defendant had already executed a Release Deed relinquishing her rights to the property in his favor.

The plaintiffs challenged this deed, alleging that it was procured through undue influence during the final years of the 12th defendant’s life when she was suffering from advanced age, Left Hemiparesis, and mental infirmity. They also sought a declaration of their share in the property and a permanent injunction restraining alienation or interference with their possession.

Justice R. Sakthivel scrutinized the evidence, noting that the 12th defendant, despite being educated and literate, affixed her left thumb impression on the deed instead of signing it. The Court highlighted her medical condition, Left Hemiparesis, which predominantly impaired the left side of her body.

"The affixing of the left thumb impression, given the 12th defendant's medical condition, raises significant doubts about her capacity to execute the deed voluntarily. The absence of independent witnesses and the exclusive role of the defendants in facilitating the document further compounds the suspicion," stated the Court.

The defendants, including Veeraiyan, failed to present credible evidence to establish that the 12th defendant was in a sound and disposing state of mind during the execution of the deed. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lay on the defendants due to the fiduciary relationship and circumstances indicating undue influence.

The defendants argued that the registration of the deed provided a presumption of validity. The Court, however, clarified:

"Registration under the law does not by itself validate a document when there are inherent suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. The law requires the proponent of such a document to remove these clouds of doubt."

The Court upheld the plaintiffs' claim to a one-sixth share in the property, as descendants of the 12th defendant. It also confirmed that the plaintiffs were in joint possession of the property, entitling them to partition and their rightful share of the income derived from the property.

The Court referenced Venkatrama Aiyar v. Krishnammal (1926 SCC OnLine Mad 446), noting:

"In cases of gifts or settlement deeds where the donor's mental or physical capacity is in question, the burden shifts to the donee to prove that the transaction was executed freely and without undue influence."

The decision also reiterated established legal principles from Neelavathi v. Natarajan (AIR 1980 SC 691) regarding joint possession among co-owners.

The Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that the plaintiffs had successfully demonstrated undue influence and lack of free consent in the execution of the Release Deed. The judgment confirmed the plaintiffs' entitlement to their share in the property, partition, and relief against interference or alienation by the defendants.

This judgment underscores the necessity for courts to carefully scrutinize transactions involving aged or infirm individuals, especially in family disputes where fiduciary relationships exist. It affirms that mere registration of a document does not shield it from invalidation when undue influence or lack of consent is apparent.

Date of Decision: November 19, 2024