Does examining one attesting witness prove a settlement deed under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act?

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, examination of one attesting witness who deposes to the settlor's instructions for execution and to the execution and registration of the document satisfies Section 68, provided his evidence is not discredited in cross-examination.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.68 — Proof of registered settlement deed — Attesting witness evidence — Suspicious circumstances — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.68 — Attestation — Sole attesting witness examined — Held: Where one attesting witness deposes to instructions given by the settlor to the document writer and to execution and registration of the settlement deed, and his evidence is not discredited in cross-examination, execution stands duly proved and the requirements of s.68 stand complied with. (¶14, 45) Settlement deed — Thumb impression instead of signature — Old age explanation — Held further: Affixture of thumb impression instead of signature by an aged settlor, where the attesting witness furnishes a reason for the same and that reason is not discredited in cross-examination, does not by itself create a suspicious circumstance affecting genuineness of the settlement deed. (¶16, 45) Partition suit — Medical evidence of incapacity — Burden on party alleging unsoundness — Held further: A plea that the settlor was incapable of understanding the disposition on account of illness must be substantiated by cogent medical evidence; testimony of a doctor who treated the settlor only briefly for a diabetic ailment, without evidence of prolonged incapacity, does not establish lack of capacity to execute the settlement deed. (¶15, 44) Partition suit — Validity of settlement deed determinative of relief — Held further: Where the properties claimed for partition stand validly settled by the propositus in favour of some heirs to the exclusion of others, and the settlement deeds are found genuine, validly executed and acted upon, the plaintiff and any co-heir challenging them are not entitled to a share in the settled properties, and the suit for partition fails. Appeal dismissed. (¶19, 20, 46, 47)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of S.Lakshmi v. 1. P.Velusamy — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India