IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. N. Jha, J.
ASHOK KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
GAON SABHA, RATAULI - Respondents
Second Civil Appeal 89 Of 1974
Decided On : 09/10/1980
SALE DEED - CANCELLATION - UNDUE INFLUENCE - IGNORANT AND ILLITERATE LADY - BURDEN OF PROOF - CONSIDERATION - PAYMENT - EVIDENCE - PARDANASHIN LADY - PROTECTION - DISABILITIES - IGNORANCE, ILLITERACY, MENTAL DEFICIENCY, INEXPERIENCE AND DEPENDENCE UPON OTHERS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, an illiterate and ignorant lady, executed a sale deed in favor of the defendants, claiming that she intended to create a waqf in favor of a Shivala and not sell the property. She alleged that the sale deed was executed under undue influence and fraud practiced by the defendants' maternal grandmother and others related to them, and that no consideration was paid to her.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court reversed the trial court's findings, holding that the plaintiff was an illiterate and ignorant lady who was entitled to the benefits available to a pardanashin lady, that the burden of proof regarding payment of consideration was on the defendants, and that there was evidence of undue influence exercised on the plaintiff by the defendants.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was an illiterate and ignorant lady entitled to the benefits available to a pardanashin lady? 2. Whether the burden of proof regarding payment of consideration was on the defendants? 3. Whether there was evidence of undue influence exercised on the plaintiff by the defendants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff, being an illiterate and ignorant lady, was entitled to the benefits available to a pardanashin lady, as she suffered from disabilities such as old age, infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy, mental deficiency, inexperience, and dependence upon others. 2. The court held that the burden of proof regarding payment of consideration was on the defendants, as the transaction raised doubt with respect to payment of consideration and the plaintiff categorically stated that she did not receive any money. 3. The court held that there was evidence of undue influence exercised on the plaintiff by the defendants, as the plaintiff used to seek advice from the defendants' mother, maternal grandmother, and maternal uncle, and the entire evidence on record satisfied that the plaintiff was made to sign a document which she never intended to execute.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellate court's decree for cancellation of the sale deed was upheld.
( 1 ) DEFENDANTS have directed this second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the civil Judge, Barabanki who decreed the plaintiffs suit for cancellation of sale deed executed on 24-12-70 by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants.
( 2 ) PLAINTIFF Smt. Rukmin is alleged to have executed a sale deed in favour of the respondents on 24-12-1970 after depositing twenty times of land revenue and obtaining the Bhumidhari Sanad. Plaintiff brought a suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed by her in favour of the defendants on the ground that she actually intended to execute a waqf in favour of the Shivala and not the sale deed in favour of the appellants. No consideration was paid to her. She was an illiterate lady and the alleged sale deed was neither read over to her nor she was made to understand it and it was under the undue influence and fraud practised by the maternal grandmother and others related to the defendants to get the sale deed be cancelled, The suit was resisted by the defendants. It was alleged that a Shivala was constructed after taking money from their father and even for Brahmabhoj and going for pilgrimage she had taken loan. Apart from that on the date of execution of sale deed a sum of Rs. 5400/- had been paid in cash while the rest had been spent towards depositing twenty times of the land revenue and purchase of necessary stamp papers. In all a sum of Rs. 13,000/- had been paid. The other allegations that the sale deed was not read out or that no sale consideration had passed or that undue influence or fraud had been practised were also denied.
( 3 ) THE learned Munsif who tried the suit held that the plaintiff intended to sell her Arali and that there was no evidence of exercise of undue influence by the defendants nor the defendants were in dominating position so as to prevail upon the plaintiff to execute the sale deed. He further held that there was no allegation of plaintiff being a Pardanashin lady. He also held that the consideration had been duly paid. On these findings he dismissed the suit The learned appellate court on appeal being preferred by the plaintiff was pleased to reverse these findings. He accordingly decreed the plaintiffs suit for cancellation of the sale deed. This is how the defendants feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court are before this Court by means of this second appeal.
( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. At the very outset I would like to observe that the issues framed in the case were most unhappily worded. In fact instead of a jumbled up issue number being framed, the learned trial Court ought to have spelt out various ingredients pleaded in paragraph 6 of the written statement by framing a separate issue on them. The appellate Court also did not apply its mind properly. But however since nothing turns on this shortcoming, I proceeded to hear the parties on merits.
( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued three main points, namely, he asserted that the plaintiff might be an illiterate lady hut she could not be termed in the category of being an ignorant lady. He maintained that the benefit available to the Pardanashin lady could not be extended in the case of the plaintiff. Secondly he argued that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove the allegation of non-payment of consideration and it has wrongly been placed on the defendants. It was lastly argued that the learned appellate Court did not record its reason for upsetting the findings recorded by the learned Munsif. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and I propose to deal with them in seriatim.
( 6 ) THE statement of P. W. 1. Smt. Rukmin has been read out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. A perusal of the same clearly established beyond reasonable doubt that she was of advanced age of about 70 years at the time of execution of the sale deed and she was an illiterate rustic vill
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.