2022 Supreme(SC) 41

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla)
M.R. SHAH, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
Keshav And Others – Appellant
Versus
Gian Chand And Another – Respondents
Civil appeal no. 364 of 2022
Decided on : 24-01-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appreciation of evidence is an exercise based on facts and circumstances where preponderance of probability can take varying form and configurations.
(2) Decision and determination of fact in issue is by examination of oral evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for truth of facts in issue.
(3) Question whether a person was in a position to dominate will of other and procure a certain deed by undue influence is a question of fact, and a finding thereon is a finding of fact.

Headnote:

(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 31 and 34 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 122 and 123 – Title declaratory suit – Concurrent findings of lower courts delve into context and factual aspects surrounding primary evidence viz., gift deed, to conclude that plaintiffs case lacks base for a bonafide claim for decree of declaration – Appreciation of evidence is an exercise based on facts and circumstances where preponderance of probability can take varying form and configurations – What facts and circumstances have to be established to prove execution of a document depends on pleas put forward – Ordinarily, no one is expected to sign or execute a document without knowing its contents, but if it is pleaded that party executing the document did not know contents thereof then it may, in certain circumstances, be necessary for party seeking to prove document to place material before court to satisfy it that party who executed document had knowledge of its contents – Considering that very origin of gift deed was disputed by executant during her lifetime, lower courts were right in weighing evidence of gift deed on touchstone of its validity first, rather than its form and content – Fact in issue in present case is voluntariness and animus necessary for execution of a valid gift deed, which is to be examined on the basis of evidence led by parties who could depose for truth of this fact in issue – Decision and determination of fact in issue is by examination of oral evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for truth of facts in issue. (Para 9)

(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 31 and 34 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Title declaratory suit – When a person obtains any benefit from another, court would call upon person who wishes to maintain right to gift to discharge burden of proving that he exerted no influence for the purpose of obtaining the document – Burden of establishing perfect fairness, adequacy and equity is cast upon person in whom confidence has been reposed – In cases of fiduciary relationships when validity of transaction is in question it is relevant to see whether person conferring benefit on the other had competent and independent advice – Question whether a person was in a position to dominate will of other and procure a certain deed by undue influence is a question of fact, and a finding thereon is a finding of fact, and if arrived at fairly in accordance with procedure prescribed, it is not liable to be reopened in second appeal – In present case, plea as to invalidity of gift deed is not to be decided on general presumption and assertion – Concurrent findings of facts arrived at in present case were based upon a holistic examination of entire evidence relating to execution and validity of gift deed – Views and findings recorded by lower courts are well reasoned and have taken into account several factors that repel and contradict claim of a valid execution of gift deed by Donor favouring plaintiffs – Impugned judgment set aside and decision and decree passed by trial court and affirmed by first appellate court affirmed. (Paras 9, 10, 11 and 12)

Facts of the case:

Judgment under challenge dated 8th August 2018 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla allows the second appeal and decrees the suit filed by the plaintiffs Gian Chand and Dhanbir, setting aside concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court. Aggrieved, Keshav and five other defendants have preferred this appeal. The dispute relates to land admeasuring 13 bighas 8 biswas being 7/20th share of total land measuring 38 bighas 6 biswas in Mouza Jakharal, and 1.17 bighas being 1/3rd share in 5.12 bighas in Mohalo Talai, which land was owned by Hardei, who died issueless in 1991. Gian Chand is the son of Hardei’s brother, whereas Keshav is her sister’s son.

Findings of Court:

Plaintiffs did not take any steps to get the mutation of land records for about four years from 1st January 1986 till 1989. The rejection by the revenue authority in 1989 remained unchallenged till Hardei died in 1991. The views and findings recorded by the lower courts are well reasoned and have taken into account several factors that repel and contradict the claim of a valid execution of the gift deed by Hardei favouring the plaintiffs.

Result : Appeal allowed.