The High Court of Delhi was dealing with petition challenging order dated 07.10.2021, whereby the application of the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 has been dismissed and no interim injunction granted in favour of the appellant.
Brief Facts:
The case of the appellant is that the subject suit properties were owned by the father of the appellant and his brother. The father expired on 10.06.2015. A settlement deed/memorandum of family settlement was arrived at between the parties, whereby it was agreed that both appellant and his brother shall relinquish their shares in the properties in favour of the mother, who would thereafter transfer one property each to appellant and his brother after payment of the loan taken against the properties. Some blank documents were got signed by his brother. Registered relinquishment deeds were executed by the appellant and his brother, relinquishing their respective shares in favour of the mother for the properties. It is contended that after the loans on the properties were discharged, respondents changed their mind and started to pressurize the appellant to vacate the property in his possession. Subject suit has been filed by the appellant inter alia seeking a declaration that the relinquishment deeds are null and void and seeking enforcement of the settlement deed/memorandum of family settlement and further seeking partition of the suit properties.
Trial Court’s Decision:
The trial court has noticed that the respondents in their written statement have contended that the relinquishment deeds were executed out of natural love and affection and without any force or pressure. It was also contended that the settlement deed is a forged and fabricated document and signatures of the respondents on the same are forged and fabricated. It was further contended that the relinquishment deeds, which were executed subsequently, do not even refer to the alleged family settlement and as such the settlement deed is ex-facie forged and fabricated.
Trial court has further noticed that the admitted case of the parties is that the relinquishment deeds were executed by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant had sought to urge that the relinquishment deeds had been prepared by fraud and forgery. The trial court has held that the relinquishment deeds are registered documents, which were duly registered before the Sub-Registrar.
HC’s observations:
After hearing the submissions made by both parties the HC observed that the relinquishment deeds even bear the photographs of the parties including the appellant, which photograph was taken at the time of registration of the documents at the Sub-Registrar’s office. Prima facie, it can safely be held that the Relinquishment deeds were executed by the appellant.
The Court also observed that “the settlement deed is an unregistered document and is not even attested by any witnesses. The trial court has rightly held that a legal presumption arises about the validity of the relinquishment deed whereas there is doubt about the validity and execution of the family settlement propounded by the appellant.”
It was also observed that even though respondents have disputed their signatures on the settlement deed, the appellant has not produced any report from a handwriting expert to prima facie establish the genuineness of the signatures of the respondents on the alleged settlement deed/memorandum of family settlement. The Court also looked into the submission of Learned Counsel for respondent that since the document is forged, there is no question of it being in their possession. Be that as it may, a visual comparison of the two documents, prima facie shows that the signatures of the mother and brother on the two documents are different. However, it is clarified that this is only a prima facie observation and would not be binding on the trial court if any evidence of an expert is produced.
HC held:
After evaluating various submissions, the HC Held that “The fact that appellant in his Suit has himself admitted the execution of the relinquishment deeds, which are duly registered and there is a doubt about the execution and genuineness of the alleged family settlement, there is no infirmity in the prima facie finding returned by the Trial Court holding that appellant has failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour.”
HC dismissed the appeal.
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Case Title: Puneet Sharma v. Archana Sharma & Anr.
Case Details: FAO 272/2021 & CM APPLS. 44348-49/2021
Picture Source :
