(Sri) Thakurji Maharaj and another vs Ram Dei

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

1930 Supreme(SC) 15

Privy Council At Allahabad
Sir Binod Mitter, Sir Lancelot Sanderson , Justice Lord Thankerton, JJ.
(Sri) Thakurji Maharaj and another -Appellant
Versus
Ram Dei -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 106 of 1928, Allahabad, Appeal No. 24 of 1927
Decided On : 03-02-1930

Important Points

In cases involving a confidential relationship where a deed is found to be harsh and unconscionable, the burden is on the benefiting party to excuse the terms; otherwise, concurrent findings of fact by lower courts will be upheld.

Subject

Civil Law - Equity and Trusts

Act Referred

CONTRACT ACT: S.16

Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Deeds - Confidential Relationship - Unconscionability - Where a relation of confidentiality exists between parties during the execution of a deed and the terms are found to be harsh and unconscionable, the burden lies on the party benefiting from the deed to provide an excuse for such terms - In the absence of evidence to the contrary, concurrent findings of fact by lower courts on these points should not be disturbed.

Facts of the case:
A deed was executed between parties who shared a relation of confidentiality. The terms of the deed were found by the lower courts to be harsh and unconscionable as regards the interests of the respondent.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that a confidential relationship existed and that the deed was unconscionable, noting that the appellants failed to provide evidence to excuse the implications arising from these facts.

Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the confidential relationship and the unconscionable nature of the deed were sustainable and should be disturbed on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: When lower courts concurrently find a confidential relationship and an unconscionable deed, and the party seeking to uphold the deed fails to provide a valid excuse for the harsh terms, the appellate court will not disturb those findings of fact.

Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates Appeared:
B.B. Joshi, W. Wallach , B. Dube, A.M. Dunne

Lord Thankerton-

This appeal raises what appears to be mainly, if not entirely, a question of fact. The facts found in both Courts below disclose that there was a relation of confidentiality between the two patties mainly concerned in the execution of the deed in question, and, further, those findings establish what appears on the face of the deed itself, that the deed was clearly harsh and unconscionable as regards the interests of the respondent, That being so, it was clear that it was essential for the appellants to excuse themselves from what would otherwise be the necessary implication arising on those facts. Both Courts below have found that there is no evidence on the part of the appellants which can afford such an excuse, and their Lordships are not prepared to disturb these concurrent findings, Accordingly they will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed