LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 18 September 2026

Is production of the original settlement deed sufficient proof where its execution is not specifically denied?

BALAKRISHNAN v. JAYACHANDRAN
SA.1335/2008 · 2026:MHC:3857 · S.A. No.1335 of 2008
Coram: Justice R.Sakthivel
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.8 Hindu Succession Act, 1956📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Production of the original settlement deed is sufficient proof where its execution is not specifically denied.

Yes. Production of the original settlement deed is sufficient proof where its execution is not specifically denied. The plaintiff did not specifically deny the execution of the gift settlement deed, so the examination of the attesting witnesses or the scribe was not necessary.

Headnote

Registration — Memorandum of past oral partition — Indian Succession Act, 1925 — s.63 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.68 — Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — s.8 — Koor Chit — Separate property — Proof of Will — Oral partition — Memorandum recording an earlier partition — Registration and stamp — Held: A document written only to record an earlier oral partition creates no rights in praesenti; it needs neither registration nor stamp and is valid and admissible as such. (¶20) Evidence — Denial of signature — Duty to seek forensic examination — Held further: A party who denies his signature on a document must take steps to send it for forensic examination and signature verification, and a denial first raised sixteen years after execution carries little weight. (¶19) Partition — Property allotted on partition — Character in the allottee's hands — Held further: Property allotted to a member under a partition is his separate property and not family property, and he may settle it on whomsoever he pleases. (¶21) Indian Succession Act, 1925 — s.63 — Will — Suspicious circumstances — Held further: A registered Will proved through its attestors raises no suspicion where the testator bequeathed only a portion of his separate property. Second Appeal partly allowed. (¶22, 25)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 21So, Ex-B.3 - Koor Chit is proved as recording the past transaction of oral partition of Suit Item Nos.1 to 3 on May 2, 1984. Under Ex-B.4 - Gift Settlement Deed dated May 29, 2000, the first defendant settled upon the second defendant his share allotted under the oral partition subsequently recorded in Ex-B.3 - Koor Chit. The property having been allotted to him under a partition is his separate property and not his family property. Hence, Substantial Question of Law (b) does not arise at all in this case. The plaintiff did not specifically deny the execution of Ex-B.4 - Gift Settlement Deed dated May 29, 2000 and hence, the examination of the attesting witnesses or scribe thereto is not necessary; the production of the original Gift Settlement Deed is sufficient and the same is found in Ex- B.4. Hence, Ex-B.4 is valid.
Acts & Sections
s.8 Hindu Succession Act, 1956s.63 Indian Succession Act, 1925s.68 Indian Evidence Act, 1872

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

Read the full text of BALAKRISHNAN v. JAYACHANDRAN — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Must a memorandum recording a past oral partition be registered or stamped to be admissible in evidence?Must a party who denies his signature on a document take steps to send it for forensic examination and signature verification?Is property allotted to a member under a partition his separate property and not family property?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections