Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.J. KANIA C.J.I., PATANJALI SASTRI, MAHAJAN, S.R. DAS AND BOSE, JJ.
Bishundeo Narain and another - Applts.
Versus
Seogeni Rai and others - Resps.
Civ. A. No. 78 of 1950. 281
4-5-1951
Advocates appeared
Shri H. J. Umrigar, Advocate, instructed by Shri R. C. Prasad, Agent - for Applfs.; Shri S. P. Sinha Senior Advocate (Shri S. N Mukherjee, Advocate, with him), instructed by Shri P. K. Chatterjee, Agent-for Resp. No. 1.
-the onus of proving fraud or negligence on the part of the next friend or guardian ad litem would be on the minor and for this purpose the minor must make distinct allegations in his pleadings and substantiate them
-must be pleaded - Bishendeo v. Seogani, AIR 1951 SC 280; Ladli Prasad v. Karmal Distillery Co.; AIR 1963 SC 1279, all particulars with dates and items, if necessary, should be stated in the pleadings. This rule has been evolved with a view to narrow down the issue and protect the party charged with improper conduct from being taken by surprise. Vague and general allegations are not sufficient - Afsar Sheikh v. Soleman Bibi, (1976) 2 SCC 142, such allegations are to be pleaded with specificity, particularity and precision. What are such particulars have been discussed in the case of Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, AIR 1976 SC 744 = (1976) 2 SCR 246.
-particulars must be set forth in the pleadings - Bishundeo v. Seogani Rai, AIR 1951 SC 280. Where there is no direct evidence of fraud, it is to be inferred from the circumstances of the case - Yeswant v. Walchand, AIR 1951 SC 16.
-is distinct from fraud and its particulars must be separately given in the plaint - Bishundeo v. Seogani Rai, AIR 1951 SC 280; Afsar Sheikh v. Soleman Bibi, AIR 1976 SC 163 = (1976) 2 SCC 142 = (1976) 2 SCR 327
-particulars of the undue influence alleged must be set forth in the plaint - Bishundeo v. Seogani Rai, AIR 1951 SC 280; Lakhi Prasad v. Nathmal, AIR 1969 SC 583; Subhas Chandra v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1967 SC 878, Ladli Prasad v. Karnal Distillery Co., AIR 1963 SC 1279; Afsar Sheikh v. Soleman Bibi, AIR 1976 SC 163. Court should insist on particulars which give adequate notice to the other side.
-nature of threat, the date, time and place in which it was given must be set forth
-a decree passed against a minor after the leave of the Court under Rule 7 as well as of the guardianship Court is binding on the minor unless the minor can show fraud or negligence on the part of his next friend or guardian ad litem – Bishundeo Narain v. Soogeni Rai, AIR 1951 SC 280. A suit by a minor to avoid a decree on the ground of negligence of the guardian can be filed even during the minority of the minor - see also decision in Ram Chandra v. Man Singh,
-is not a nullity but is merely voidable at the option of the minor, the minor must bring a suit to avoid a decree based on such compromise otherwise a decree passed on such compromise would be binding on the minor - Bishnudeo v. Seogeni Rai, AIR 1951 SC 280, but it is voidable at the instance of the minor only and not at the instance of any other party. It is voidable against the parties that are major but not against the minor. It cannot be avoided by the parties who are major against the minor - Kaushalya Devi v. Baij Nath, AIR 1961 SC 790.
-such a sanction, as held in Bishnudeo v. Seogeni Rai, AIR 1951 SC 280, is not necessary even to enable a guardian to conclude a provisional agreement with a view to compromise.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a dispute over the validity of a family settlement and partition decree, with the plaintiffs asserting that the decree does not bind them due to alleged undue influence, coercion, or fraud during its execution (!) (!) .
The family in question is descended from a common ancestor, with the parties divided into different branches following a long history of separation and partition, and some properties remaining undivided (!) (!) (!) .
The plaintiffs challenge the fairness of the earlier partition decree, claiming it was obtained under undue influence and coercion, particularly alleging that the family patriarch was forced into a compromise by a family member with undue influence (!) (!) .
The defendant claims that the family was already separated long before the partition, and that subsequent property acquisitions and arrangements were independent and binding family agreements. The defendant also contends that the earlier partition was fair and that the properties were acquired separately (!) (!) .
The initial court decision favored the plaintiffs, declaring the partition decree invalid and ordering a fresh partition, but this was reversed by a higher court, which dismissed the plaintiffs' claim (!) (!) .
A key legal issue concerns whether the court properly sanctioned the compromise involving minors, with emphasis on procedural compliance under the relevant rules for obtaining court approval before such agreements are made (!) (!) .
The court clarified that obtaining court sanction after an agreement has been concluded does not render the agreement null but only voidable at the minor’s option, unless the proper procedure was followed beforehand (!) .
The plaintiffs sought to challenge the validity of the decree primarily on the grounds of undue influence, coercion, and unfairness, but the evidence was insufficient to prove undue influence or coercion, especially since the allegations were not properly pleaded with full particulars (!) (!) .
The specific allegations of coercion and undue influence were found to be unsupported by credible evidence, and the court noted that the plaintiff’s evidence did not establish threats with sufficient particulars, such as the nature, time, or place of the alleged threats (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that allegations of undue influence and coercion require detailed particulars, and vague or general claims are insufficient to establish such defenses (!) (!) .
The court also observed that the value of properties and the fairness of the partition could not be conclusively determined without proper evidence, and therefore, the dispute over the fairness of the partition was not decided in this case (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit, ruling that the pending related proceedings are more appropriate for resolving the issues of partition and property rights, and that the plaintiffs’ claims regarding the invalidity of the decree based on undue influence or coercion were not substantiated (!) (!) .
The decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance, especially in cases involving minors, and highlights that allegations of fraud or undue influence must be pleaded with specific, detailed particulars to be considered credible and actionable.
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on these key points.
Judgement
Bose J.- This is a pltfs , appeal from a judgment & decree of the H. C. of Judicature at Patna. Their Lordships of the P. C. had granted special leave & the matter has been transferred to this Ct.
2. The suit out of which the appeal arises was for a declaration that a compromise decree, made in a previous suit for partition, does not bind the pills. The learned counsel for the pltfs applts. also contends that he asked for partition in the present case. But that is a matter of doubt.
3. The facts in brief are as follows: The parties are members of a family whose common ancestor was one Moti Rai. A long genealogical tree was attached to the plaint but it is not necessary to reproduce more than the following:
4. Moti Rai had two Sons, Bhanjan Rai & Hazari Rai. The defts. are descended from the former & the pltfs. from the latter. The contesting deft. is Saogeni Rai, son of Firangi Rai. The pltfs. did not disclose that Moti Rai s two sons were by different wives, as that was not their case, but that has now been found to be the fact & was not disputed here.
5. The pltfs . case is that the family was joint at all material times until their father Ghughuli Rai was forced into a partition in the year 1924. They state that this partition does not bind them for a variety of reason which, so far as they affect the present appeal will be detailed later .
6. According to the pltfs. the circumstances of that partition were as follows. The pltff. father Ghughuli Rai & the first pltf. instituted partition Suit No. 51 of 1924 against Eirangi Rai & his brothers and their descendants, that is to say, against all the members of Bhanjan Rai s branch who were then in existence. The pltff. 2 was not then born & pltf. 1 was a minor. There were also minors among the defts. Firagi Rai, who was the karta of the family through the exercise of undue influence & by coercion, forced the pltf s. father to compromise. The compromise was grossly unfair & unequal but nevertheless a decree for partition followed. This is the decree which the pltfs. seek to challenge here.
7. It is admitted on both sides that that decree left certain properties undivided. The extent of those properties is in dispute but the facts that some properties were left undivided is admitted.
8. In the year 1936 deft. 1 instituted partition suit No. 29 of 1936 for partition by metes & bounds of that portion of the estate which was not divided in 1924. The pltfs. case is that the previous partition does not bind them & so the whole of the family estate must be brought into hotch-pot & divided and not merely the properties which were left undivided in 1924; also that their share in these properties is greater than the share allotted to their father under the compromise decree. The pltfs state that so long as the compromise decree in partition suit No. 51of 1924 stands, such a defence is not open to them in suit No. 29 of 1936. Accordingly, they have brought the present suit.
9. Deft. 1 alone contested & as we are not concerned with any of the others except indirectly, it will be convenient to refer to him throughout as the deft. He stands by the compromise & denies that the partition effected by it was either unequal or unfair. On the contrary, he asserts that the pltfs. got much more than they were entitled to. He also denies the allegation about undue influence and coercion.
10. The deft s. case about the compromise is this. He admits that the family was once joint but says that there was a separation long ago in the lifetime of Moti Rai himself. Moti Rai s two wives could not pull on, so the deft s. grandfather Bhanjan Rai separated from his father Moti Rai & his step-brother Hazari Rai. This was some twenty years before the suit. Ever since the two branches have had nothing in common.
11. The deft. states that there were further partitions among the defts . branch & that from time to time members of the defts. branch, as also those on the pltfs. side, have been acquiring pro
The court affirmed the plaintiffs' right to partition of joint family property, ruling that the defendants failed to prove prior partition, and emphasized the necessity of registration for partition ....
A minor can seek partition, but cannot challenge a compromise decree if not a party to it; Lok Adalat awards are binding unless proven otherwise.
In partition suits, a compromise among co-owners is valid even in the presence of third-party claims, provided it does not extinguish their rights.
Compromise decrees in partition suits involving minors without their inclusion are void and can be challenged based on coercion or lack of lawful procedure.
Family arrangements promoting peace and preventing disputes are upheld; oral partitions must be substantiated by clear evidence to be enforceable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that allegations of fraud, coercion, and undue influence require strict proof of facts, and the mere existence of unequal shares does not lead to a....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
