Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.B.Mehrotra
SRIKANT SINGH
Versus
RAM KESARI DEVI
Decided On : 19 September 1995
Second Appeal No. 2538 of 1994
FRAUDULENT SALE DEED - CANCELLATION - BURDEN OF PROOF - FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP - UNCONSCIONABLE TRANSACTION - MENTAL CAPACITY - EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANCES - PRESUMPTION - PARDANASHIN LADIES - OLD AGE - INFIRMITY - IGNORANCE - ILLITERACY - MENTAL DEFICIENCY - INEXPERIENCE - DEPENDENCE UPON OTHERS - DISABILITIES - PROTECTION - VALIDITY OF DEED - INTERPRETATION - RATIO DECIDENDI - APPLICATION - FACTS - SALE DEED EXECUTED BY OLD MAN OF 90 YEARS OF AGE - LOSS OF EYE SIGHT - OUT OF SENSES ON ACCOUNT OF DEATH OF SON - BURDEN ON VENDEE TO PROVE FULL COMPREHENSION AND MENTAL CAPACITY - FAILURE TO DISCHARGE BURDEN - SALE DEED DECLARED VOID.
Fact of the Case:
Dhannu Singh, an old man of 90 years of age, who had lost his eyesight and was out of senses due to the death of his son, executed a sale deed in favor of Srikant Singh, a distant collateral, for the entire property. Dhannu Singh's daughter-in-law, Ramkesari Devi, filed a suit to cancel the sale deed, alleging that it was obtained by Srikant through fraud and that Dhannu Singh did not have the mental capacity to execute the deed.
Finding of the Court:
The lower appellate court found that the sale deed was obtained by Srikant through fraud and that Dhannu Singh did not have the mental capacity to execute the deed. The court held that the burden was on Srikant to prove that Dhannu Singh had executed the sale deed after full comprehension and in a healthy condition of body and mind, and that Srikant had failed to discharge this burden.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale deed was obtained by Srikant through fraud? 2. Whether Dhannu Singh had the mental capacity to execute the sale deed?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof was on Srikant to prove that Dhannu Singh had executed the sale deed after full comprehension and in a healthy condition of body and mind, and that Srikant had failed to discharge this burden. The court also held that the circumstances of the case, including Dhannu Singh's old age, loss of eyesight, and mental state, created a presumption of undue influence and unconscionability, which Srikant had failed to rebut.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower appellate court's decision to cancel the sale deed.
The present second appeal has been instituted by defendant appellant.
2. The essential facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are as under;
Dhannu Singh and Smt. Ramkesari Devi who is daughter-in-law of Dhanni Singh, filed Suit No. 48/5 in the Court of Sixth Additional Munsif Ghazipur against Srikant and in that suit prayed for the relief that the sale deed dated 20-11-1974 executed by Dhannu Singh in favour of Srikant be cancelled and it be declared that the said sale deed is void.
3. According to the plaintiff-defendants so committed fraud (sic) Dhannu Singh and got executed the sale deed dated 28-1-1974 in respect of the property: in suit in favour, The plaintiff has alleged as under in the suit. The following pedigree with regard to plaintiff and defendant is worthy of mention :
Inarman Singh
Mahangi Singh Begam Singh
Laxman Singh Chandra Singh Shiobarat Salik Ram Barat
Naurang Singh Dhannu Jagannath. (plff No. 1) Srikant (Defendant) Brahma
Ram Kesari (widow) (plft. No. 2)
Sharda (son)
Dhannu Singh plaintiff number ones son was Brahma Singh Brahma Singhs wife Ramkesari Devi was plaintiff No, 2 Brahma Singh had died earlier. The present suit has been filed by Dhannu Singh and the widow of Brahma Singh jointly as plaintiff against the remote collateral Srikant. It was alleged in the plaint that the property described in Schedule "b" of the plaint was acquired by the ancestors of Dhannu Singh and in the said property Dhannu Singh and Brahma Singh have had halt share each. Both the parcel of land were the property of joint family prior to abolition of Zamindari and after the abolition of Zamindari the plaintiff had been joint bhumidhars of the property in suit. Brahma Singh the son of plaintiff suddenly died in 1974 and after the death of Brahma Singh his widow Ramkesari Devi became member of the joint Hindu family of plaintiff No, 1, and got half share in the property in suit some land described in Schedule B came under consolidation and the Consolidation Officer has carved out a Chak in favour of plaintiff No. 1, the said property is describ ed in Schedule A. The plaintiff Dhannu Singh has attained the age of 90 years, he is old man having impaired eye sight, as such unable to see. Brahma Singh was the sole son of Dhannu Singh, the said son suddenly died and his condition in old age became miserable and the loss of the son resulted in the loss of the mental faculties of plaintiff No. 1. The mental faculties of Dhannu Singh became confused over taken by old age and grief of death of son resulted in the plaintiff No. 1, reaching a stage of lunatic. The plaintiff No, 1 has a daughter named Ramyati who is married to Mahatam Singh, and the only daughter-in-law of plaintiff No. 1 is Smt. Ram Kesari Devi who figures as plaintiff No. 2, Sharda Devi is the sole daughter of Brahma Singh and Smt. Ram Kesari plaintiff No. 2 and the marriage of Sharda Devi aged 18 years was arranged to take place with Sheshnath. The defendant Sri Kant Singh is a distant collateral of plaintiff No. 1, however, he is co- sharer in the property shown in Schedule B.
4. It has further been alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff No. 1 was at the verge of death and keeping in mind that after his death there can arise a dispute between his collaterals and his daughter-in-law and daughter, and on one side there will be a widowed daughter-in-law and weak daughter, on the other side will be powerful collaterals. The plaintiff after full comprehension and with an idea of keeping peace in the family executed a registered Will on 1-10-1974 and the said Will devised 1/3 share each to his daughter Ramvati, daughter-in-law Smt. Ramkesari, collateral Sri Kant Singh in respect of the property in suit and as per Will in the disputed property the 1/3 share of the plaintiff was to go to the above three persons after the death of the plaintiff.
5. It has further been mentioned in the plaint that the disputed pro perty which has been described in Sche
AI
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
