Madras High Court· 24 July 2026

What medical evidence is needed to prove a settlor lacked capacity to execute a settlement deed?

S.Lakshmi v. 1. P.Velusamy

AS No. 333 of 2013 · AS No. 333 of 2013
Coram: Justice K.Kumaresh Babu

🔖 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

A bare diagnosis of diabetic illness treated briefly, without evidence of prolonged incapacity or inability to understand the transaction, does not establish that the settlor lacked capacity to execute the settlement deed.

Headnote

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)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 15The Trial Court further observed that the plaintiff had failed to adduce satisfactory medical evidence to establish that late Palanisamy Gounder was incapable of understanding or executing the settlement deeds on account of illness or unsoundness of mind. The Court noted that PW2 doctor had admitted the absence of medical records evidencing prolonged incapacity or unconsciousness and that the mere existence of diabetic illness or old age would not by itself establish lack of testamentary capacity.

Paragraph 44It is the contention of the appellants that the settlement deeds had been executed under suspicious circumstances, as the settlor had been chronically ill and was incapable of understanding the execution of the documents. In this regard, they had examined the Doctor, who they had claimed to have treated the settlor, as PW.2. A perusal of the evidence of PW.2, as recorded by the trial Court, would also indicate that PW.2 had not spoken about any serious ill health of the settlor and had spoken only about treating the settlor for diabetic illness, that too for a brief period. Apart from that, no evidence had been placed by the appellants to substantiate that the settlor had been suffering from a chronic illness and was incapable of understanding his actions.

Acts & Sections

s.68 Indian Evidence Act, 1872

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.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Does examining one attesting witness prove a settlement deed under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act?Does affixing a thumb impression instead of a signature make a settlement deed suspicious?

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