Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Debangsu Basak, J.
Malina Jana - Appellant
Versus
Promoda Pakhira – Respondent
S.A. No. 440 of 1996 and C.A.N. No. 2822 of 2010
Decided on : 26-03-2014
UNDUE INFLUENCE - DEED OF SETTLEMENT - SECTIONS 101, 102 AND 111 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, SECTION 123 - REGISTRATION ACT, SECTION 34 - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963, SECTION 31(2) - INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872, SECTION 19 - LIMITATION ACT, ARTICLE 59 - In a suit challenging a deed of settlement executed by an illiterate woman, the court held that the burden of proof was on the defendants to establish that the deed was executed by the donor in good faith, as the presumption of undue influence based on the relationship between the parties was not warranted by law.
Fact of the Case:
Rohini Bala Pakhira, the owner of a property in Kolkata, executed a deed of settlement in 1971, settling a two-storied building in favor of her daughter and vacant land in favor of her grandson, who was a minor at that time. The plaintiffs, heirs and legal representatives of Rohini Bala, filed a suit challenging the deed of settlement, alleging that it was obtained by undue influence and was invalid, ineffective, fraudulent, collusive, and not binding on them.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case. The appeal court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that undue influence was practiced upon Rohini Bala and that the averments in the deed of settlement were not fair, and that Rohini Bala did not execute the deed voluntarily and consciously.
Issues: 1. Whether the deed of settlement was obtained by undue influence. 2. Whether the plaintiffs were required to prove undue influence in terms of sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or whether it was for the defendants to establish that the deed of settlement was validly executed by Rohini Bala, in terms of Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 3. Whether the recitals of the deed of settlement were contradictory or inconsistent, rendering the entire deed bad in law.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The presumption of undue influence based on the relationship between the parties to the deed of settlement was not warranted by law. 2. The burden of proof was on the defendants to establish that the deed of settlement was executed by the donor in good faith, as the plaintiffs had sufficiently averred the ingredients of undue influence in the plaint. 3. The deed of settlement did not disclose any term which was contradictory or inconsistent with each other, and the donor was well within her right to make the provisions as done in the deed of settlement.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree under appeal were set aside, and Title Suit No. 50 of 1982 was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Debangsu Basak, J.
1. The defendants' second appeal was directed against a judgment of reversal. The suit was for declaration and injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The Appeal Court reversed the decision of the Trial Court and passed a decree in the suit. Smt. Rohini Bala Pakhira died leaving behind four sons and two daughters as her heirs and legal representatives. The suit was between the heirs and legal representatives of Smt. Rohini Bala Pakhira. Smt. Rohini Bala Pakhira was the owner of Premises No. 62/1, Govindpur Road, Kolkata. The area of the premises was about 4 Kattahs with a building standing on 2 Kattahs and the remaining was vacant land.
2. In 1970, Rohini was living with her 3rd son. In 1971 she went to live with the eldest son at 39, Lake Gardens, Kolkata. She died on April 21, 1981. During her lifetime she executed a deed of settlement dated December 7, 1971 in respect of 62/1, Govindpur Road, Kolkata property. By such deed of settlement, she settled the two storied building in favour of one of her daughter and the vacant land in favour of the grandson (son of the eldest son). The grandson was minor at that point of time.
3. The plaintiffs obtained the certified copy of the deed of settlement dated December 7, 1971 on August 7, 1981. The plaintiffs filed the suit challenging the deed of settlement. The plaintiffs claimed that the deed of settlement was invalid, ineffective, fraudulent, collusive and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that, the deed of settlement was brought about by practising fraud and undue influence upon Rohini Bala Pakhira.
4. The defendants contested the suit. A joint written statement was filed. The defendants claimed that the deed of settlement was validly and consciously executed by Rohini Bala Pakhira. Such deed of settlement was acted upon. By virtue of such deed of settlement the defendants were the true and actual owners of the property in question. The defendants were in possession of the suit property.
5. Six issues were framed for the trial of the suit. The Trial Court found on appreciation of the evidence before it that, the plaintiffs failed to prove their case. The Trial Court dismissed the suit.
6. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The Appeal Court considered the contentions urged before it as well as the judgment under appeal. The Appeal Court found that Rohini Bala was an unlettered village woman and that undue influence was practised upon Rohini Bala to obtain the deed of settlement. The Appeal Court found that, the averments in the deed of settlement were not fair and that Rohini Bala did not execute the deed of settlement voluntary and consciously. The Appeal Court, therefore, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
7. The present second appeal was admitted on September 2, 1994 and was directed to be heard on the ground nos. 5, 9 and 10 of the memorandum of appeal. Such grounds were held to raise substantial questions of law.
8. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that, Rohini Bala was the owner of the immovable property being the subject matter of the suit. In respect of the suit property she executed the deed of settlement dated December 7, 1971 voluntarily and consciously. On the execution of the deed of settlement and its registration, according to the appellants, the transfer of the immovable property in favour of the donees stood completed. The appellants relied upon Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. Reliance was placed on2001 Volume 3 SCC Page 179 paragraph 15 (Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari), 2004 volume 1 SCC Page 581 paragraphs 10, 11, 30 and 31 (K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam & Ors. With K. Kamalam v. K. Balakrishnan & Ors.), 2003 volume 7 SCC Page 683 paragraph 15 (M. Rangasamy v. Rengammal & Ors.).
9. The appellants contended that, the plaint did not contend necessary pleadings under Order 6, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with regard to the alleged undue influence and misrepres
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
