Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, JJ.
Smt. Draupadi Poira and another – Appellant
Versus
Sri Bhagabat Chandra Poira and others –Respondents
FA 253 of 2010
Decided on : 10-08-2023
PARTITION - DECLARATION - MANDATORY INJUNCTION - DEED OF NIRUPAN - SALE DEED - EXECUTION - MISREPRESENTATION - UNDUE INFLUENCE - VALIDITY - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, wife and daughter of Ganesh Chandra Poira, sought declaration, partition, and mandatory injunction in respect of certain properties. They alleged that Ganesh Chandra Poira died an unnatural death during the absence of his wife, and that the respondents, his brother's son and wife, claimed the properties based on a Deed of Nirupan and a sale deed executed by Ganesh Chandra Poira in 1977 and 1979, respectively. The appellants claimed that the deeds were obtained through misrepresentation and undue influence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to prove that the deeds were executed under abnormal circumstances or on the basis of misrepresentation. It noted that the appellants did not produce the main witnesses, Ganesh Chandra Poira's wife and daughter, who could have provided direct evidence. The court also relied on the principle that the burden of proof lies on the appellants to prove their own case and that they cannot rely on the laches of the respondents.
Issues: 1. Whether the Deed of Nirupan and the sale deed were executed by Ganesh Chandra Poira under misrepresentation or undue influence. 2. Whether the appellants discharged their burden of proof.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellants failed to prove that the two deeds in question, which they sought to be adjudged as void, were executed by misrepresentation or by committing fraud. 2. The court further held that the appellants, as plaintiffs, were required to prove their own case and could not rely on the laches of the respondents. 3. The court also held that the question of shifting the burden of proof upon the respondents did not arise since the appellants had not been able to prove their contentions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
Supratim Bhattacharya, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and order passed by the Ld. Civil Judge Sr. Divn. Purba Medinipur in the Title Suit 31 of 1993 on 16.06.2010.
2. Through the aforementioned Judgment the Ld. Trial Judge has been pleased to dismiss the said suit.
3. The lis involves declaration and partition along with mandatory injunction.
4. The appellants/plaintiffs namely Draupadi Poira and Santilata Giri, being the wife and daughter of Ganesh Chandra Poira, contends that one Narendra Nath Poira was the father of Ganesh Chandra Poira and Bhagabat Chandra Poira.
5. The said Ganesh Chandra Poira died an unnatural death on 03.01.1993, during the absence of his wife who had gone to her father’s house at that point of time.
6. Till 03.01.1993 both Ganesh Chandra Poira and his elder brother Bhagabat Chandra Poira were residing in joint mess. Names of both of them were recorded in the record of rights. Bhagabat Chandra Poira being the elder brother was acting as the head of the family and used to look after all the properties.
7. On 02.01.1993 the appellant no.1 namely Draupadi Poira went to her paternal house and returned to her matrimonial house on 05.01.1993. After returning she came to know that the said Ganesh Chandra Poira has expired and the body has already been cremated. On enquiry she came to know that the death of Ganesh Chandra Poira was unnatural. The matter was reported to the police.
8. Subsequently after lapse of time the said appellant/plaintiff no.1 requested the defendant no. 1 to have partition of the suit properties when the defendant no. 1 refused to have partition and expressed that Ganesh Chandra Poira has transferred his share in favour of the respondents no. 2 and 3 namely Bibhutibhusan Poira and Padmabati Poira the son and wife respectively of the said Bhagabat Chandra Poira, in the year 1977 and 1979 by executing a Deed of Nirupan and a sale deed.
9. Thereafter the appellant/plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the Deed of Nirupan dated 20.9.1977 in respect of the A schedule land and the sale deed dated 05.03.1979 in respect of the B schedule land.
10. The contentions of the respondents/defendants is that the A schedule property originally belonged to Ganesh Chandra Poira and Bhagabat Chandra Poira having equal share in respect of the same. On 20.09.1977 Ganesh Chandra Poira transferred his share through a Deed of Nirupan being no. 6152 absolutely in favour of Bibhutibhusan Poira and also transferred life interest in favour of Padmavati Poira. Bhagabat Chandra Poira.
11. It is also the contention of the respondents that on 05.03.1979 Ganesh Chandra Poira sold the B schedule property by a registered deed of sale being deed no. 2177 in favour of Bibhutibhusan Poira to repay the loan taken by Ganesh Chandra Poira for the marriage of his daughter.
12. The appellants/plaintiffs have alleged that both the deeds have been procured by way of misrepresentation. On the basis of the said allegations the appellants/plaintiffs have sought for declaring both the deeds as illegal and void being vitiated by fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation.
13. As such the appellants/plaintiffs claim share and partition in respect of the scheduled mentioned properties
14. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs during his submission has submitted that the appellants and the respondents used to live in a joint mess and the respondent namely Bhagabat Poira being the elder brother used to look after the properties while the properties were recorded jointly in the name of both the brothers namely Ganesh Chandra Poira and Bhagabat Chandra Poira. He has further submitted that the said Ganesh Chandra Poira could only sign but he was not a literate person.
15. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that during the subsistence of the life of Ganesh Chandra Poira no question was raised by the respondents as regard
The burden of proof lies on the appellants to prove their own case, and they cannot rely on the laches of the respondents.
The presumption of validity of a registered sale deed cannot be dismissed without compelling evidence to substantiate claims of fraud and incapacity.
The execution of the sale deeds by an elderly woman was deemed valid as the burden of proof regarding fraud and lack of consideration lay with the plaintiffs, which they failed to establish.
![Umesh Singh[D]Th.Smt.Sohan Singh ( Deleted ) . vs Santosh Singh And Ors. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 11360](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madhya_Pradesh_1.png)
The burden of proof for executing gift deeds rests on the proponent, especially when the grantor is vulnerable due to age or literacy, necessitating clear evidence of understanding.
The court annulled a sale deed executed under fraudulent circumstances, affirming that a seller lacking exclusive rights cannot validly transfer property.
The execution and validity of a Will require strict adherence to statutory provisions, including proper attestation, which was not proven in this case, rendering the claimed interests void.
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
