Madras High Court· 10 September 2026

Must an attesting witness be called to prove a registered document, other than a Will, whose execution is not specifically denied?

M.Santhanam v. P.Ponram

AS(MD).56/2024 · 2026:MHC:3755 · A.S(MD)No.56 of 2024
Coram: Justice P.Vadamalai

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.68 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 📬 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

No attesting witness need be called to prove a registered document, other than a Will, whose execution is not specifically denied.

No. No attesting witness need be called to prove a registered document, other than a Will, whose execution is not specifically denied. The proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act dispenses with the attesting witness in that situation, and a pleading of fraud or forgery is not a specific denial of execution. (¶17, 18, 19)

Headnote

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.68 — Registered settlement deed — Specific denial — Partition — Self-acquired property — Partition — Property allotted to a coparcener — Self-acquired, not ancestral — Held: Property allotted to a coparcener on partition ceases to retain the incidents of joint family property and becomes his self-acquired property with absolute rights. (¶15) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.68 — Registered document — Attesting witness not required — Held further: Where execution of a registered document other than a Will is not specifically denied, the proviso to s.68 applies and no attesting witness need be called. (¶17, 19) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.68 — Presumption of valid execution — Onus on the party challenging — Held further: A registered document is presumed to be validly executed, and the onus to rebut that presumption lies on the party challenging it. (¶18) Partition — Registered settlement deed standing in the way — Cancellation a condition precedent — Held further: A plaintiff cannot seek partition of property covered by a registered settlement deed without having it cancelled or set aside. Appeal dismissed. (¶21, 22)

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 17On perusal of the appeal records, trial Court records and on consideration of arguments advanced by both sides, it is clear that the settlement deed is a registered one. It was not disputed. Admittedly, the original settlement deed was not filed instead, a certified copy of the settlement deed is marked as Ex.B.1. The defendant contended that the original was handed over to his proposed purchaser based on a sale agreement. The settlement came to be executed in 1996. The plaintiffs have not questioned the same till the filing of the suit and only in this suit contended that the settlement is not a genuine one and no witness was examined to prove as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is replied on the defendant's side that the plaintiffs have not objected at the time of marking the certified copy and, having permitted the document to be marked and having contested on merits, the plaintiffs cannot contend that Ex.B.1 should be discarded solely for the reason that the original was not produced. From perusal of records, the plaintiffs have not specifically denied the Ex.B.1 settlement deed by way of reply statement even after filing of written statement by the defendant. Hence, the contention of the respondent/defendant side that the execution of the settlement deed is admitted by the plaintiffs is accepted since there is no specific denial, if it is so, the settlement deed being registered is proved under the proviso of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Paragraph 18The material records of this case reveal that the disputed document is a registered one and therefore, as guided by the settled legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 353. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below:

Paragraph 19Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act is extracted hereunder:

Acts & Sections

s.68 Indian Evidence Act, 1872

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

Read the full text of M.Santhanam v. P.Ponram — 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

Is property allotted to a coparcener on partition his self-acquired property and not joint family property?Is a registered document presumed to be validly executed, with the onus to rebut that presumption on the person challenging it?Can a plaintiff seek partition of property covered by a registered settlement deed without having it cancelled or set aside?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections