Back
2015 Supreme(Pat) 84
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
L. NARASIMHA REDDY & GOPAL PRASAD, JJ.
Jai Kant Singh & Ors. - Defendants- Appellants
Versus
Ram Subhag Singh Kushwaha
All sons of late Ram Subhag Singh Kushwaha - Plaintiffs-Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.66 of 1993 IN First Appeal No.6 of 1981
Decided on: 28-01-2015
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellants :Mr. Dhrub Narayan Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Abhishek, Advocate For the Respondents:Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Praveen Prakash, Advocate
The plea of a party being a minor on a particular date is a pure question of fact and must be raised in the pleadings for the Court to deal with it. The evidence on the plea of undue influence must be strong and not self-contradictory.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - 45 decimals of land - Rs.17,300 - Minor's competence - Undue influence - Coercion - Validity of agreement - Execution of sale deed - Financial capacity - LPA upheld with modification
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit against the appellants for specific performance of an agreement of sale for 45 decimals of land. The trial Court decreed the suit, which was upheld by the learned Single Judge in the appeal. The appellants filed a Letters Patent Appeal, contending that the respondent was a minor when the agreement was executed, and the agreement was brought into existence using undue influence and coercion.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plea of the respondent being a minor when the agreement was executed was not raised in the suit and cannot be raised for the first time in the appeal. The Court also held that the plea of undue influence was self-contradictory and the evidence on the plea was weak. The Court upheld the decree passed by the trial Court with a modification that the respondents shall be under obligation to pay a further sum of Rs.25,000 towards consideration to the appellants, provided the appellants execute the sale deed within two months from the judgment.
Issues: Validity of the agreement, competence of the minor, undue influence, coercion, execution of sale deed, financial capacity
Ratio Decidendi: The plea of the respondent being a minor when the agreement was executed was not raised in the suit and cannot be raised for the first time in the appeal. The plea of undue influence was self-contradictory and the evidence on the plea was weak. The Court upheld the decree passed by the trial Court with a modification regarding the payment of a further sum of Rs.25,000 towards consideration.
Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, upholding the decree passed by the trial Court with a modification regarding the payment of a further sum of Rs.25,000 towards consideration.
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 16.07.1993 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Appeal from Original Decree No.6 of 1981. The appeal in turn was filed against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.1980 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Arrah, in Title Suit No.70/2 of 1977/1980. The defendants in the suit are the appellants herein.
The facts, in brief, are as under:
The respondents filed a suit against the appellants for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 13.12.1976. It was pleaded that the appellants entered into an agreement of sale in respect of 45 decimals of land, in plot no.986, Khata No.162 of village- Daulatpur, Ara- District; for a total consideration of Rs.17,300/-. A sum of Rs.3,000/- is said to have been paid on the date of agreement. The respondents pleaded that though a notice, requesting the appellants to execute the sale deed was issued, they did not respond to it; and left with no alternative, the suit was filed. It was stated that the respondents were ready and willing to perform their part of contract.
The appellants filed their written statement opposing the suit. They denied the very execution of the agreement. It was alleged that the suit agreement of sale was forged one. Alternatively, it was pleaded that the executant, by name Jaikant Singh was addicted to intoxicants and taking advantage of the same, the agreement was obtained from him, by using undue influence and coercion. The absence of cause of action and some other pleas were also raised.
The trial Court decreed the suit. The same was upheld by the learned Single Judge, in the appeal.
Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.
Sri Abhishek, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the respondent was a minor when the agreement is said to have been entered into, and the resultant contract is, therefore, void. He submits that the agreement was brought into existence, by using undue influence, and coercion, and in fact, the executant did not have the competence, to deal with the property, which is held by the joint family. He further contends that the trial Court and the learned Single Judge did not take into account, the various questions of law and have decreed the suit without, there being any basis.
Sri Surendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the plea that the respondent was a minor when the agreement was executed, was not raised in the suit at all and when it was raised for the first time in the first appeal, the learned Single Judge dealt with the same thoroughly and rejected it. He submits that the plea of the forgery, on the one hand, and that of undue influence, on the other hand, cannot go together and both Courts have taken correct view of the matter and the same does not warrant interference by this Court. The suit was filed, by the respondents, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Have the plaintiffs got a valid cause of action for the suit?
2. Is the suit as framed maintainable?
3. Is the suit bad for defect of parties?
4. Is the deed of contract (Mahadnama) dated 13.12.1976 genuine, valid and binding on the defendants?
5. Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree of specific performance of contract for sale of the suit property as claimed by them?
6. To what other relief or reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?
Before the trial Court, P.Ws 1 to 12 were examined on behalf of the respondents, i.e. plaintiffs and D.Ws.1 to 7 on behalf of the appellants herein (defendants). The relevant documents were also filed as exhibits. The trial Court decreed the suit, through the judgment dated 14.10.1980.
In the First Appeal, the learned Single Judge of this Court framed the following points for consideration.
(i) Whether the contract for sale (
