Back
L.M.SHARMA, T.K.THOMMEN
Dulari Devi – Appellant
Versus
Janardansingh – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves a suit for cancellation of a sale deed, where the plaintiff is an illiterate person who believed she was executing a gift deed in favor of her daughter. She was unaware that she had executed two documents—one being a gift deed and the other a sale deed—due to fraudulent misrepresentation about the nature of the documents (!) (!) .
The plaintiff's ignorance and her honest belief that she was executing only a gift deed, combined with the fact that her thumb impressions were taken without her understanding, established that she was deceived regarding the character of the document (!) .
The court recognized that the transaction was vitiated by fraud as to the character of the document, rendering it wholly void. This is distinguished from merely being voidable, as the fraud involved misrepresentation about the nature of the document, not just its contents (!) (!) .
The legal principle applied states that when a fraudulent misrepresentation involves the character of a document, the transaction is considered void and of no legal effect from the outset. This is different from cases where a document is merely voidable due to other reasons (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the effect of such a fraudulent transaction cannot be cured through regular contractual remedies, and the transaction is null from the beginning (!) .
The remedy for such cases lies in the appropriate proceedings before the relevant authorities, and the plaintiff's claim was upheld on that basis. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the transaction was totally void due to the fraud (!) (!) .
The decision underscores the importance of the nature of misrepresentation—whether as to the contents or the character of a document—in determining whether a transaction is void or voidable (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT
THOMMEN, J.:- This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2954 of 1979 (reported in 1981 All LJ 109) whereby the learned Judge of the High Court, allowing the defendants appeal, set aside the decrees of the Courts below. The High Court held that the suit was barred by reason of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff is an illiterate person. Her daughter Rameshwari Devi is the wife of the 6th defendant, Yogendra Prasad Singh. Arjun Singh and Janardan Singh, defendant Nos. 3 and 4, are the brothers of the 6th defendant. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 had gained the confidence of the plaintiff and she confided in them her desire to make a gift of her entire properties in favour of her daughter. Defendants Nos.3 and 4 readily agreed to make arrangements to execute and register the necessary deed. On 18-9-1971, these defendants took the plaintiff to the office of the Sub-Registrar. The plaintiff paid the amount needed for expenses. The defendants purchased stamp papers in the name of the plaintiff. On two deeds, w
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
