Back
1944 Supreme(SC) 39
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD GODDARD AND SIR MADHAVAN NAIR.
RAMCHANDRA JIVAJI KANAGO - Appellant
Versus
LAXMAN SHRINIVAS NAIK - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Bombay.
Decided On : Dec. 4. 1944.
Solicitor for appellants: Harold Shephard.
A gift induced by undue influence is voidable, not void, if the donor intended to make the gift. Limitation for setting aside such an instrument under Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act begins from the date of knowledge of the transaction, not the removal of the influence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - Article 91 - Period of limitation for setting aside an instrument - Article 141 - Recovery of possession of immovable property - Section 10 - Suit against trustee - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 122 - Definition of gift - "Voluntarily" - A gift induced by undue influence is not necessarily involuntary; if the donor intended to make the gift, it is "voluntary" but voidable, not void. (Paras 11-13)
(B) Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - Article 91 - Limitation begins to run from the date the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument set aside become known - Knowledge of the character of the transaction at the time of execution triggers the limitation period, regardless of when the undue influence is removed. (Paras 13-14)
(C) Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - Section 10 - Application limited to property vested in trust for a specific purpose - Does not apply to properties obtained through a voidable gift deed induced by undue influence. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
A donor executed a gift deed in favor of his sister. The donor's heirs later sought recovery of the property, alleging the gift was obtained through undue influence. The trial court found the gift void, but the appellate court found it voidable and barred by limitation. The appellants argued the gift was not "voluntary" under the Transfer of Property Act and thus void, and that the property was held in trust.
Findings of Court:
The gift was made "voluntarily" as the donor intended to benefit the recipient, despite being under undue influence. Consequently, the transaction was voidable and not void. The limitation period under Article 91 began when the donor became aware of the transaction.
Issues: Whether a gift induced by undue influence is void or voidable under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, and whether the suit for recovery was barred by Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: A transaction induced by undue influence is voidable, not void, if the donor intended to make the gift, satisfying the "voluntary" requirement of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. Limitation for setting aside such an instrument runs from the date of knowledge of the transaction's character, not from the removal of the undue influence.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
civil law
-
property law
-
transfer of property
- gifts
-
transfer of property
-
limitation law
- suits to set aside instruments
-
trust law
- trusts for specific purpose
-
property law
-
family law
-
hindu law
- adoption
-
hindu law
Judgement
Appeal (No. 54 of 1941) from a decree of the High Court (March 17, 1937) which reversed a decree of the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum (April 23, 1932).
The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The question for determination in this appeal was whether the plaintiffs (appellants) suit for recovery of possession of
09 Law. Rep. 72 Ind. App. 21 ( 1944- 1945) Ramchandra Jivaji Kanago V. Laxman Shrinivas Naik
110
the suit properties was barred by art.91 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (Act IX. of 1908). That article prescribes a period of "three years" for a suit to cancel or "set aside an instrument not otherwise provided for,” and time begins to run "when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside become known to him." The table given below shows the relationship of the parties to the suit who were members of a Hindu family descended from one Balaji Kanago—
Balaji surnamed Kanago of Pachhapur. | ||
Annaji I Ramchandra I = Gangabai | alias Sitaram (predeceased | (died in 1889). her husband). |
Kashibai=Tammaji=Tungabai
(died in (died on
1900). 5-5-26).
|
| | | |
Jiwaji Guru Appaji = Savitribai Shakuntalabai=Laxman shrinivas
Tamntajis (prede-ce (born in (died on alisa Akkubai Naik
son by ased 1894, 13-7-17) (died on (Defendant No 1)
Kashibai his died on 3-2-23). 19-11-20).
(died on father) | |
4-7-18) | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| | | |
Sitaram Annaji II | Raghavendra
alias (Plaintiff | alias Annaji
Ramchandra II. No. 2) | (Defendant
(born on | No. 2).
12-3- 1902) |
(Plaintiff No. 1) |
|
| |
Tammana Vatsala
(born in January (born on
1915 and died in 19-6-17
February or March died on
of the same year). 17-10-17)
Balaji had two sons, Annaji I and Ramchandra T. As found by the High Court, they separated in 1865. The elder, Annaji, died leaving a son Tammaji. The suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted by plaintiffs 1 and 2, Ramchandra II and Annaji II, the two sons of Jiwaji, who was the son of Tammaji,
09 Law. Rep. 72 Ind. App. 21 ( 1944- 1945) Ramchandra Jivaji Kanago V. Laxman Shrinivas Naik
111
against respondent No.1, Laxman, who was defendant No. 1, and his minor son Raghavendra, respondent No. 2, who was defendant No. 2. It was alleged in the plaint that the suit properties belonged to Appaji, son of Tammaji by Tungabai, that Appaji died without leaving surviving him either a widow or any issue, that on his death his mother Tungabi succeeded to his properties, and that on her death the plaintiffs as the nearest reversioners to Appaji were entitled to the properties in the suit. Tungabai died in 1926, and the suit was instituted in 1927. Defendant No. 1 was the husband of a sister of Appaji named Shakuntalabai, alias Akkubai, deceased, and defendant No. 2 was their son. In the joint written statement which they filed, they stated that the father of the plaintiffs was adopted by Ramchandra I in the genealogical table, that defendant No, 2 was adopted by Tungabai after the death of Appaji, and that he was therefore a nearer heir to Appaji as he became his brother by Tungabais adoption. The defendants contended further that Appaji had made a gift of the suit properties to his sister, Shakuntalabai, by a deed of gift dated May 24, 1915, that she left the same to her son, defendant No. 2, by her will dated November 16, 1920, which she had made before she died on November 19, 1920, and that defendant No. 1 as the guardian of his son came into possession of those properties. The plaintiffs met that plea with the case that Appaji was induced to execute the deed by the undue influence of defen dant No. 1 and his wife Shakuntalabai, and that therefore the gift was invalid. Lastly, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs suit was barred by limitation.
Issues 5, 6, and 9 which were as follows, related to the validity of the gift set up by the defendants and their plea of limitation "(5) Is the gift by Appaji to Shakuntalabai prove
