SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 867

DORAISWAMY RAJU, ARIJIT PASAYAT
Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul – Appellant
Versus
Pratima Maity – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

What is the burden of proof regarding fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence in a fiduciary/confidential relationship? What is the scope for interference under Section 100 CPC when concurrent findings of fact exist but may be misdirected on question of law? What are the principles governing the execution validity of a deed of settlement where the executant is old/illiterate and in a fiduciary relationship?

What is the burden of proof regarding fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence in a fiduciary/confidential relationship?

What is the scope for interference under Section 100 CPC when concurrent findings of fact exist but may be misdirected on question of law?

What are the principles governing the execution validity of a deed of settlement where the executant is old/illiterate and in a fiduciary relationship?


JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court held that the deed of settlement purported to have been executed by Dasu Charan Kul (hereinafter referred to as the executant ) was a void and invalid document. The fight between relatives of the executant centers round a registered deed of settlement purported to have been executed on 11.7.1970 by the executant. A suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by Pratima Maity, daughter of Phani Charan Kul, son of Dasarathi Kul. The suit property originally belonged to Dasarathi Kul who died in the year 1972. His Son Phani Charan Kul died in the year 1979. Averments in the plaint were to the effect that on coming to know from the office of the Block Land Reforms Officer that defendant No. 1- Krishna Mohan Kul (appellant No.1 in the present appeal) had filed a registered deed of settlement dated 11.7.1970 it was necessary to get the deed declared to be void and invalid as the same was a forged document. There was no existence of the witnesses whose names appeared in the said deed which was created to grab the property of the plaintiffs. It was in this back





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top