Back
1982 Supreme(All) 281
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. M. Sahai, J.
RAM CHANDRA SINGH (DECEASED BY L.RS.) - Appellant
Versus
BASDEO SINGH - Respondents
Second Appeal 1241 Of 1974
Decided On : 03/23/1982
B.L.SRIVASTAVA, H.N.Tripathi, V.K.Gupta
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the execution of a sale deed is not necessarily void due to inadequacy of consideration, and motivations to protect the property do not render the transaction as vitiated by undue influence if free consent and valid execution are established.
Headnote:
Undue Influence - Sale of Property - The court found that the appellant, despite the misfortune of losing his son and being ill-treated, was not found to lack rational judgment or mental capacity at the time of executing the sale deed. The court held that the execution of the sale deed, despite possible motivations to protect the land from ill-treatment, was not vitiated by undue influence as long as the respondents did not abuse their advantageous position.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, after facing misfortune and ill-treatment, executed a sale deed of his entire agricultural land. He later filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed, alleging lack of rational judgment and that the sale deed was fictitious.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the appellant lacked rational judgment and was ill-treated, leading to the execution of the sale deed. The appellate court, however, found that the appellant had the capacity to form rational judgment at the time of executing the sale deed.
Issues: The main issues were the appellant's mental capacity at the time of executing the sale deed and whether the sale deed was vitiated by undue influence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's grief and motivations to protect the land did not render the sale deed invalid due to undue influence, as long as the respondents did not abuse their advantageous position.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to bear their costs throughout.
( 1 ) MISFORTUNE on appellant, since deceased did not come alone when his young and only son died in 1960 leaving a widow and a daughter. In order to assuage the feeling of his daughter-in-law and convenience in cultivation he permitted Rajpal Singh and Kayam Singh the two brothers of daughter-in-law to live with him but they appeared to have lost their patience soon and started ill-treating the appellant and even beating him which forced him to abandon his own house and live with Basudeo Singh his nephew and Kunwar Pal his grandnephew son of another brother. But his misfortune did not leave him. While he was residing with his nephews he executed a sale deed on 11th Sept. 1967 of his entire agricultural land. Probably he was in haste here also as soon after he came back he filed the present suit on 28th May 1970 for cancellation of the sale deed alleging that at time of execution of sale deed he lacked power of rational judgment and the sale deed executed by him was a fictitious document. The trial court found that the young and the only son of the applicant having died and he having been ill-treated became depressed, lost mental balance and shifted to live with his nephews who taking advantage of his mental condition got the sale deed executed in their favour, According to trial court there could have been no reason to sell the entire land and deprive himself of means of his livelihood. He further found that the consideration was grossly inadequate and the circumstances in which the sale deed was executed were suspicious. The finding was reversed in appeal as the son of appellant died two years prior to the execution of the sale deed and in the statement recorded on 7-5-69 in mutation proceedings the appellant had stated that he had executed the sale deed of his own free will and volition. The appellate court did not find any merit in the plea that the appellant lacked power to form rational judgment.
( 2 ) SRI K. M. L. Hajela the learned counsel for appellant argued the appeal with commendable thoroughness and persuasion nearly each time the appeal was listed, after failure of compromise talks, bat the findings that appellant had capacity to form rational judgment being based on statement in mutation proceedings recorded nearly two years after death of son remained impregnable. The statement is so clear and specific that it hardly leaves any option. Being made conscious of it the learned counsel argued that it having been made in spell of dominating influence exercised by respondent was squarely covered in broad spectrum of undue influence particularly when the appellate court did not set aside the finding of trial court that sale deed was executed without any consideration. Learned counsel maintained that due to death of his son and behaviour of Rajpal and Kayam Singh the appellant was not in a position to exercise his independent will therefore the burden to prove that the deed was written independently without exercise of any undue influence was on respondent as they were in an advantageous position and it is they who could establish that they did not abuse the confidence reposed in them. Reliance in this connection was placed on an unreported decision of this court in Daya Shanker v. Smt. Bachhi, First Appeal No. 307 of 1968 decided on 4-1-1980 : (since reported in AIR 1982 All 376) wherein the Division Bench after reviewing numerous authorities held, we are unable to comprehend as to why the broad principle which has been accepted and widely applied in the numerous decisions to which we have adverted should not also embrace within its sweep the cases of males who by reason of their physical or mental in capacity or infirmity or being placed in circumstances whereby they are greatly amenable to overpowering influence of another person are induced to enter into conveyance and transactions relating to their property.
( 3 ) UNFORTUNATELY, for appellant the principle laid down in this decision does not come t
