Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, J.
Smt. Anuradha - Appellant
Versus
Jai Jai Ram - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 481 of 2016
Decided On : 15-09-2021
fiduciary relationship - cancellation of sale deed - Evidence Act, Section 111, Transfer of Property Act, Section 54 - The court discussed the existence of fiduciary relationship between the parties and the burden of proof in the absence of relevant pleadings. The judgment highlighted the importance of pleadings in determining the burden of proof and emphasized that the burden cannot be shifted without the necessary pleadings.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of a sale deed, alleging that the defendant, his daughter, took advantage of his illness and got the sale deed executed in her favor without paying any consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court found a fiduciary relationship between the parties and shifted the burden of proof to the defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate court erred in shifting the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant without relevant pleadings. It held that the judgment of the appellate court was erroneous on facts and law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the existence of a fiduciary relationship, the burden of proof, and the validity of the sale deed in light of the plaintiff's allegations of fraud and lack of consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of pleadings in determining the burden of proof and held that the burden cannot be shifted without the necessary pleadings. It also clarified that the burden of proof cannot be reversed without establishing the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the first appellate court for a fresh decision in accordance with the pleadings and the law.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Anant Vijay, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2016 passed by District Judge, Kannauj allowing the Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2014 and decreeing the Suit No. 22 of 2012 (Jai Jai Ram vs. Smt. Anuradha), which was dismissed by the trial court by its judgment and decree dated 19.07.2014.
3. The plaintiff-respondent instituted an Original Suit No. 22 of 2012 praying for a decree of cancellation of sale deed dated 15.12.2011 executed by him in favour of the defendant-appellant regarding his bhumidhari land whereon he was recorded as owner in possession in revenue records. It was averred in the plaint that the aforesaid land was the only source of livelihood of the plaintiff who has six daughters. Five of them have been married and the defendant, who is also his daughter, called the plaintiff for treatment to her house. When he was semiconscious and not in full senses she took him to the tehsil and got the sale deed in dispute executed in her favour. When the people of the village saw him with the defendant they gave full information to the plaintiff and his family members. He was detained by the defendant in her house and his other daughters and wife with the help of police brought him back and thereafter the suit was instituted.
4. The defendant filed her written statement denying the plaint allegations and stated that the plaintiff needed money for business and therefore he executed the sale deed for sale consideration of Rs. 5 lakhs when he was in his full senses. She denied that he was ever ill and called for treatment by the defendant and thereafter fraudulent sale deed was got executed by her.
5. The plaintiff filed his replication in the suit stating that the defendant has taken undue advantage of his illness. She called him to her house where she got the disputed sale deed executed by fraud. The plaintiff never needed any money. He had no reason to execute the sale deed of the entire land recorded in his name when it was the only source of his livelihood.
6. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W-1 and produced, Naval Kishore as P.W-2 before the trial court.
7. Defendant examined herself as D.W-1 and produced Durgesh as D.W-2 and Pramod Kumar as D.W-3 before the trial court.
8. In evidence the copy of the sale deed dated 15.12.2011 copy of the khatauni, observation report, hospital receipt, medicine receipt, notices regarding recovery of loan and copy of khasra, was filed by the plaintiff.
9. The defendant produced the certified copy of the sale deed dated 31.05.1993 and applications sent to the police officials. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed five issues and the relevant ones were issue no. 1, whether the disputed sale deed dated 15.12.2011 is required to be cancelled on the basis of averment made in the plaint and issue no. 5 regarding relief.
10. The trial court decided the issue no. 1 holding that from the documentary as well as oral evidence on record. It appears that the plaintiff was not suffering from any ailment and he executed the disputed sale deed on his own free will after taking the sale consideration. Therefore, it found that the sale deed is not result of any fraud. Issue no. 5 was accordingly decided holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief and the suit was dismissed.
11. The appellate court has again gone into the evidence on record and has given a finding that there was relationship of good faith between the plaintiff and his daughter, the defendant. The defendant took undue advantage of fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff and got the sale deed in dispute executed. No sale consideration was paid to the plaintiff. The first appellate court has held that the burden of proof of good faith in the alleged transaction was upon the defendant since she was in a position of active confidence of the p
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of pleadings in determining the burden of proof and the inability to shift the burden without the necessary pleadings.
The burden of proof regarding undue influence lies with the defendant when the plaintiff is an illiterate villager, but the defendant successfully discharged this burden, validating the sale deed.
A registered sale deed cannot be set aside on grounds of oral claims of fraud or coercion unless substantiated with clear evidence, and a non-payment of full consideration does not invalidate the dee....
The burden of proof in allegations of fraud lies on the party in active confidence, and claims of ignorance are undermined by the execution of prior documents.
Section 111 of Evidence Act States as proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation of active confidence.
The validity of a registered sale deed is presumed unless strong evidence of fraud or intoxication is presented, and claims of limitation must be substantiated.
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove fraud, and complete particulars of fraud must be stated in the pleadings. A registered deed of sale carries a presumption of genuineness, and the onus....
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
