Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. C. Srivastava, J.
HAKIMUDDIN - Appellant
Versus
MOHAMMAD ANIS, REPRESENTING MST.SABBIRUNNISAN - Respondents
Second Appeal 1688 Of 1979
Decided On : 09/16/1997
PARDANASHIN LADY - SALE DEED - BURDEN OF PROOF - Where a person seeks to hold a Pardanashin lady to the terms of her deed, the burden of proof lies on the person who relies on the deed to satisfy the court that the deed was explained to and understood by the party executing it.
Fact of the Case:
Sabbirunnisan, an illiterate and elderly Pardanashin lady, filed a suit for cancellation of two sale deeds and recovery of possession of the subject matter of the sale deeds, alleging that the sale deeds were executed by practicing fraud upon her and without consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and cancelled the sale deeds and granted a decree for possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the burden of proof lay on the defendant, who was a beneficiary from the sale deeds and who was claiming the same to be valid sale deeds, to prove that the sale deeds were executed by practicing fraud and were without consideration. The court further held that the defendant failed to discharge this burden of proof and that the sale deeds were therefore liable to be cancelled.
Issues: 1. Whether the burden of proof lay on the plaintiff or the defendant to prove the validity of the sale deeds. 2. Whether the defendant discharged the burden of proof and established that the sale deeds were executed by practicing fraud and were without consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that where there is a question of proof of good faith of a transaction between the parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence. The court also relied on the principle that the protection afforded to a Pardanashin lady can be divided into two categories: (1) cases where the person who seeks to hold the lady to the terms of her deed is one who stood towards her in a fiduciary character or in some relation of personal confidence; and (2) cases where the person who seeks to enforce the deed was an absolute stranger and dealt with her at arms length.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower appellate court's decision to cancel the sale deeds and grant a decree for possession.
( 1 ) THIS is defendants second appeal. Brief facts essential for disposal of this appeal are as under :
( 2 ) THE deceased-plaintiff, Smt. Sabbirunnisan, filed a suit for cancellation of two sale-deeds dated 7. 5. 1960 and 4. 6. 1960 and also for recovery of possession of the subject-matter of sale-deeds and for recovery of Rs. 800 as damages. The allegations in the plaint were that by virtue of inheritance explained in the plaint the deceased-plaintiff. Smt. Sabbirunnisan held 13/48 share in the plots detailed in schedule a and residential house detailed in schedule c and half share in occupancy plots detailed in schedule e of the plaint. Hakimuddin, the original defendant No. 1, was cousin of Mohammad Anls. He occasionally visited the village and resided with Sabbirunnisan. Sabbirunnisan was illiterate Pardanasin lady aged about 65 to 70 years. She had eye trouble. Hakimuddtn took her to Allahabad on the pretext that he will consult some eye specialist for the treatment of her eye trouble. She was brought by Hakimuddin to Allahabad where Hakimuddin represented her that in view of the change in law regarding agricultural land, she should obtain bhumidhari rights on sirdari plots. In the month of Jeth of 1960 Hakimuddin took her to court at Allahabad and obtained her thumb impression on a document representing that it was in connection with acquisition of bhumidhari rights. She being illiterate Pardanashin lady could not know about the contents of the document. About a month thereafter, it was again represented by Hakimuddin that a power-of-attorney should be executed by her in his favour and obtained another thumb impression on another document. These two documents were used for getting the two sale-deeds impugned executed by Sabbirunnisan. 15 days before the institution of the suit, standing crops of Sabbirunnisan over the plots were harvested by Hakimuddin. On enquiry he told that she had executed documents transferring her rights in the agricultural plots and residential house to him. She then after obtaining copies of the sale-deeds came to know that the sale-deeds dated 7. 5. 1960 and 4. 6. 1960 were got executed by practising fraud upon her and no consideration was paid and that the contents of the same were never read over and explained to her and that no independent legal advice or consultation was given to Sabbirunnisan. She remained in possession till Hakimuddin forcibly harvested the crop. Further it was alleged that the sale-deeds were in excess of the rights of Sabbirunnisan. She also claimed Rs. 800 as damages for causing damage to the standing crop.
( 3 ) THE suit was resisted on the ground that the sale-deeds are valid and were executed by the deceased-plaintiff after understanding its contents. No fraud was practised on her and that the deceased-plaintiff was not a Pardanashin lady.
( 4 ) THE trial court dismissed the suit observing that Sabbirunnisan failed to discharge the onus laid upon her and that she executed the two sale-deeds in her own rights.
( 5 ) AN appeal was filed which was decided on 16. 11. 1961. The appeal was allowed and the case was remanded back to the trial court for framing preliminary issues and deciding the case in accordance with law. Against this order, first appeal from Order No. 59 of 1962 was filed in this court which was allowed and the lower appellate court was directed to decide the appeal on merits. The order of remand was set aside by this Court. The appeal was again heard by the lower appellate court which allowed the same and cancelled the two sale-deeds and also granted decree for possession but refused to grant any decree for damages to the tune of Rs. 800. It is, therefore, this appeal.
( 6 ) NO substantial questions of law were formulated in the memo of appeal nor any substantial question of law was formulated at the time of admission of the appeal.
( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent contended that all other findings except the question of
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
