1984 Supreme(Bom) 359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
C.S. Dharmadhikari V.V. Vaze, JJ.
H.S. Trivedi.... Appellant.
Versus
Namdev Vishnu Kanalekar others.... Respondents.
And
Vithal Bhikaji Mayekar others.... Appellants.
Versus
Namdev Vishnu Kanalekar others.... Respondents.
And
Shankar Bhikaji Mayekar.... Appellant.
Versus
Namdev Vishnu Kanalekar others.... Respondents.
Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 125, 126 and 142 of 1983, decided on 5/7-12-1984.
Advocates appeared :
H. Suresh i/b. Dhruve Liladhar and Co., for appellants in LPA 125 of 1983.
M.A. Rane with P.L. Naik, for respondent in L.P.A. Nos. 125, 126 142 of 1983.
U.J. Makhija, for respondent Nos. 2(a) to 2(f) in L.P.A. No. 125 of 1983.
Pravin Merchant and Co., for respondent No. 3 in L.P.A. 125 of 1983.
U.J. Makhija, for appellants in L.P.A. No. 126 of 1983, for respondents Nos. 2(a) to 2(f) in L.P.A. 142 of 1983.
M.L. Palan with P.J. Merchant i/b. Pravin Merchant and Co., for appellants in L.P.A. 142 of 1983.

A contract induced by undue influence is voidable at the option of the party who was subjected to such influence.

Headnote:

CONTRACT - UNDUE INFLUENCE - ELEMENTS - BURDEN OF PROOF - CONSIDERATION - WANT OR INADEQUACY - CONDUCT OF PARTIES - EVIDENCE - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 16 OF THE CONTRACT ACT, 1872.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, Namdeo Kinalekar, filed two pauper petitions alleging that two documents, Exh. 'M' and 'K', were obtained from him by fraud, coercion, and undue influence while he was mentally incapacitated due to black magic practiced by his brothers-in-law and other family members. The documents purported to transfer his factory and shops to Vishwanath Gole and Baburao More, respectively. The defendants denied the allegations and claimed that the documents were executed for valid consideration.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff was not of unsound mind at the time of executing the documents but was under the undue influence of his brothers-in-law and other relatives. The court held that the relations between the parties were such that the defendants were in a position to dominate the plaintiff's will and that they used this position to obtain an unfair advantage over him. The court also found that the documents were executed without consideration and that the subsequent transfers of the properties were bogus and fabricated to clothe the possession of Trivedi and Shankar with a legal title.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was of unsound mind at the time of executing the documents? 2. Whether the defendants were in a position to dominate the plaintiff's will? 3. Whether the defendants used their position to obtain an unfair advantage over the plaintiff? 4. Whether the documents were executed for valid consideration? 5. Whether the subsequent transfers of the properties were bona fide?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A person who is usually of sound mind but occasionally of unsound mind may not make a contract when he is of unsound mind (Section 12 of the Contract Act, 1872). 2. A contract is said to be induced by 'undue influence' where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other (Section 16 of the Contract Act, 1872). 3. Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other (Section 16(3) of the Contract Act, 1872). 4. Want or inadequacy of consideration is a relevant factor in determining whether a contract was induced by undue influence.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the defendants and upheld the judgment of the trial court and the learned Single Judge, declaring the documents Exh. 'M' and 'K' null and void and granting consequential reliefs to the plaintiff.