Back
Himachal Pradesh High Court
D. B. LAL
Kartari - Appellant
Versus
Kewal Krishan - Respondent
Decided On : 10/14/1971
UNDUE INFLUENCE - GIFT DEED - BURDEN OF PROOF - LIMITATION - CANCELLATION OF GIFT DEED - VALIDITY OF CONTRACT - NATURAL HEIR - POSSESSION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, Shrimati Kartari, filed a suit for recovery of possession of landed property gifted by her mother, Shrimati Basanti, to the defendants, Kewal Krishan and Mula Ram, alleging undue influence and fraud. The defendants claimed ownership based on the gift deed, asserting that Shrimati Basanti wanted the property to go to her deceased husband's heirs rather than the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants were in a position to dominate the will of Shrimati Basanti, an aged and ailing lady, and that they exercised their influence to obtain an unfair advantage by depriving the plaintiff, the natural heir, of her entire share in the properties. The court also held that the burden of proof lay upon the defendants to establish that undue influence was not exercised, which they failed to do.
Issues: 1. Whether undue influence was exercised in obtaining the gift deed from Shrimati Basanti? 2. Whether the defendants had the burden of proof to establish that undue influence was not exercised? 3. Whether the gift deed was valid and conveyed a free and full consent of Shrimati Basanti? 4. Whether the plaintiff, as the natural heir, was entitled to possession of the property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court applied the principles of undue influence, holding that the defendants were in a position to dominate the will of Shrimati Basanti and that they exercised their influence to obtain an unfair advantage. The court relied on the circumstances of the case, including the age and health of Shrimati Basanti, the absence of the plaintiff at the time of the execution of the gift deed, and the defendants' involvement in obtaining and registering the deed. 2. The court held that the burden of proof lay upon the defendants to establish that undue influence was not exercised, as the transaction appeared to be unconscionable. 3. The court held that the gift deed was not valid as it did not convey a free and full consent of Shrimati Basanti, who was not aware of the true contents of the document and did not understand the nature and effect of the transaction. 4. The court held that the plaintiff, as the natural heir of Shrimati Basanti, was entitled to possession of the property.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the District Judge were set aside, and the plaintiff's suit for possession was decreed, with costs all throughout.
JUDGMENT:- This second appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 24th June, 1968 of the District judge, Kangra, whereby reversing the decision of the Sub-Judge First Class Una, he has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff which was for recovery of possession over landed property which was gifted by the plaintiffs ancestor to the defendants. Shrimati Kartari appeared in Court with the allegations, that her mother Shrimati Basanti was the exclusive owner of 20 Kanals and 16 Marias of land situate in. 'Mauza' Badhara (P.S. Una) of which the Khasra numbers were given in tile plaint. It was alleged that Shrimati Basanti was an old, feeble, helpless and illiterate woman. She was 'pardanashin' and was not in a sound state of mind as she used to remain sick. In fact, the plaintiff used to look after her and usually resided with her as she was her only daughter and had become widow within four years of her marriage. The plaintiff has no issues of her Own. According to plaintiff, her mother was attached to her and she was looking after her properties. Sometimes in March or April, 1961, the plaintiff went to reside at her husband's house and the defendants Kewal Krishan and Mula Ram who were collaterals in the fourth degree, of the husband of Shrimati Basanti, taking advantage of her absence and of the helpless condition of Shrimati Basanti, brought to bear undue influence upon her and brought her to Una under the pretext of getting her treated by some doctor. There on 4th April, 1961 they managed to obtain a gift-deed from her which they got registered on that very day. In this manner Shrimati Basanti was divested of her entire landed property and the defendants claimed ownership on the basis of the gift-deed. When the plaintiff came back to her village, she came to know from people that some transaction of gift was obtained by the defendants from her mother. Accordingly she made enquiries from her mother who did not remember anything but simply asserted that she was made to sign some transfer deed in favour of the defendants. Thereafter, at the instance of Shrimati Basanti, the two ladies went to Una on 24th April, 1961 and got scribed a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Hosiarpur, to the effect that under undue influence and fraud, some transfer deed was obtained from Shrimati Basanti by the defendants and that the same would not be binding upon them. Three or four days thereafter, Shrimati Basanti died. The defendants had come in possesion over the disputed land and did not vacate possession. Therefore, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for recovery of possession after cancellation of the gift-deed.
2. The defendants contested the suit on the allegations, that Shrimati Basanti was neither old nor feeble nor incapable of understanding. Rather she fully understood the document which she executed in favour of the defendants. According to defendants, she did not want her properties to descend upon the heirs of the plaintiff who was daughter and rather wanted the properties to go to the heir of her deceased husband. That was a reason, according to defendants, why a gift-deed was executed by her in favour of the defendants. It was denied that any undue influence was exercised upon the lady and that any fraud was practised upon her.
3. The learned Sub-Judge found in favour of the plaintiff and after cancelling the gift-deed, decreed the suit for possession. The defendants came in appeal before the learned District Judge and he disagreed with the decision of the learned sub-Judge and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has now come up in this second appeal.
4. There is a specific allegation in the plaint that undue influence was exercised and in the absence of the plaintiff, the defendants, had taken the lady who, was ailing, to Una under the pretext that she was to be given a treatment by some doctor. She was, thus, brought under the influence of the defendants and the gift-deed was obtained. The Court trying
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
