Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed a second appeal challenging concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, both of which had rejected the appellant’s claim for partition and separate possession in ancestral property. The Court held that the execution of a registered release deed extinguishes all ownership rights, and once the appellant voluntarily relinquished his share, he ceased to have any claim in the property.
Justice Shailesh P. Brahme emphasized that “once a co-sharer executes a release deed in favour of another, he divests himself of ownership completely, and cannot later claim partition of the same property.” The appeal was therefore dismissed on merits, upholding the validity of the release deed and rejecting allegations of fraud or misrepresentation.
Facts
The appellant and respondent were brothers who jointly owned ancestral agricultural land and a residential house. In 1998, the appellant executed a registered release deed in favour of his brother, relinquishing his share in the property for consideration. Following this, the respondent became the exclusive owner and remained in peaceful possession for several years.
Years later, the appellant filed a civil suit seeking partition and separate possession, claiming that the release deed had been obtained fraudulently and without free consent. He alleged that he had been misled about the nature of the document and that the transaction was void for lack of proper understanding and absence of valuable consideration.
The trial court examined the evidence of both parties and dismissed the suit, holding that the deed was duly executed and registered, with the appellant’s clear consent. The first appellate court affirmed this view. The appellant then approached the High Court in second appeal, challenging the concurrent findings as perverse and contrary to law.
Issues
- Whether the registered release deed executed by the appellant was valid and binding.
- Whether the appellant could claim partition and possession after having relinquished his rights.
- Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts suffered from any legal or factual infirmity justifying interference in second appeal.
Petitioner’s (Appellant’s) Arguments
The appellant argued that the release deed was obtained through deceit and without proper understanding of its contents. He contended that the document was executed under the false pretext of settling minor family disputes and that no monetary consideration had been paid.
It was further urged that the document did not amount to a legal relinquishment, as it lacked the essential elements of a transfer under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The appellant claimed continuous possession of the property and argued that, as a co-parcener in ancestral land, he could not have been divested of his birthright without due partition.
He submitted that both the trial court and the first appellate court had erred in overlooking the evidentiary inconsistencies and had wrongly presumed voluntariness in execution. Reliance was placed on Kale and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1976) to argue that family settlements and transfers among co-sharers must be bona fide and voluntary to be binding.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent opposed the appeal, asserting that the release deed was executed voluntarily and registered in accordance with law. The appellant, it was contended, had willingly relinquished his share after receiving consideration, and the document clearly mentioned his consent and awareness.
The respondent further argued that the appellant’s challenge was an afterthought made nearly two decades after execution, merely to harass and disrupt the settled ownership. The plea of fraud, it was submitted, was unsupported by any evidence, as the appellant had not demonstrated coercion, misrepresentation, or incapacity at the time of execution.
The respondent relied upon Prem Singh v. Birbal (2006) 5 SCC 353, where the Supreme Court held that a registered document carries a presumption of genuineness and cannot be invalidated merely on allegations of misunderstanding. It was further contended that the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could not reappreciate concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law arose.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scope of a release deed under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. A release deed, when executed by a co-owner in favour of another, operates as a conveyance of interest, divesting the executant of ownership. The Court reiterated that once such a deed is duly registered, its contents carry a presumption of authenticity, and the burden to disprove it lies heavily on the executant.
The Court observed that the appellant had failed to produce any cogent evidence showing fraud, coercion, or absence of consent. The execution and registration of the deed had been witnessed by independent witnesses, and there was no material to show that the appellant lacked understanding of the nature of the transaction.
Citing Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court noted that oral evidence cannot contradict the contents of a validly executed and registered document unless fraud, mistake, or illegality is proved.
Precedent Analysis
- Prem Singh v. Birbal (2006) 5 SCC 353 – A registered document carries a presumption of validity; the burden of proving fraud lies on the person alleging it.
- Kale and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1976) 3 SCC 119 – Family settlements must be voluntary and bona fide to bind parties.
- Ranganayakamma v. K.S. Prakash (2008) 15 SCC 673 – Release deeds are valid conveyances between co-owners; once executed, no rights survive in favour of the releasor.
- S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram (2010) 5 SCC 401 – Registered instruments cannot be invalidated without specific pleading and proof of fraud.
- Narayanamma v. Govindappa (2016) 9 SCC 721 – Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless there is perversity or misreading of evidence.
The High Court found these precedents directly applicable, particularly Prem Singh and Ranganayakamma, confirming that registration of a release deed establishes its binding character unless successfully challenged with substantial evidence of fraud.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Brahme observed that the appellant’s claim was purely factual and had been adequately adjudicated by both the trial and first appellate courts. The appellant’s allegations of fraud were vague and unsubstantiated, lacking any contemporaneous evidence.
The Court reiterated that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is confined to substantial questions of law and cannot be invoked to reexamine factual appreciation. Since both lower courts had concurrently held the deed to be valid, no question of law arose.
The Court concluded that the appellant, having voluntarily executed the deed and allowed it to remain unchallenged for years, could not reopen settled ownership merely on bald allegations. Equity also demanded that long-settled property relations not be disturbed.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the concurrent findings that the appellant had voluntarily executed a valid release deed and had no surviving ownership rights. The plea of fraud was rejected, and the suit for partition was held to be devoid of merit and barred by delay.
The Court upheld the principle that a registered release deed conclusively extinguishes ownership rights, and absent proof of fraud, courts must respect its finality. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
Implications
- Confirms that once a release deed is executed and registered, ownership rights stand extinguished irrevocably.
- Affirms that allegations of fraud must be proven with strong evidence; mere assertions are insufficient.
- Reinforces that second appeals cannot reopen concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law arises.
- Protects stability in property transactions and prevents belated attempts to reclaim relinquished shares.
