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

1919 Supreme(SC) 80

LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE, LORD PHILLIMORE, SIR JOHN EDGE, AMEER ALI, SIR LAWRENCE JENKINS
POOSATHURAI – Appellant
Versus
KANNAPPA CHETTIAR – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitors for appellant:Chapman-Walker & Shephard. Solicitor for respondents: Douglas Grant.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The issue is whether the deed of sale should be canceled on the ground of undue influence and unconscionability under Indian Contract Act, particularly s.16 and the burden of proof on the influencer (!) (!) - Whether the relationship of domination existed and if the bargain was unconscionable or undervalued, considering the consideration and debts involved (!) (!) - The sufficiency of evidence for undue influence and whether the High Court correctly affirmed or reversed the Subordinate Judge’s decree, including consideration of alleged conspiracy or agency (!) (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?


Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (July 30, 1912) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Madura.

The appellant sued defendants now represented by respond ents, for cancellation of a deed of sale dated March 17, 1906, executed by him in favour of the respondent Kannappa Chettiar (the third defendant) on the ground of fraud and undue influence. The undue influence alleged by the plaint was that of the first and second defendants, maternal uncles of the appellant the plaint also alleged misrepresentation by the first three defendants and want of consideration.

The Subordinate Judge, after a consideration of the evidence, said that he had no doubt that the transaction was unconscionable and unfair, and that the plaintiff was induced to enter into it by the representations and influence of the first defendant, who stood in a fiduciary relation to the plaintiff; and that the first defendant influenced the plaintiff partly to benefit himself at the plaintiffs expense, also undue pressure which the third defendant was able to exercise upon him. He also found that

23 Law. Rep. 47 Ind. App. 1 ( 1919- 1920)

Poosathurai V. Kannappa C hettiar 124

certain debts,

















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