1945 Supreme(Nagpur) 56

HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Pollock, Sen
BUCHIBAI – Appellant
Versus
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY – Respondent
First Appeal No. 1 of 1939
Decided on : 24-08-1945

A compromise entered into under undue influence is voidable at the instance of the party who was influenced.

Headnote:

The plaintiff, Buchibai, filed a suit against the defendant, the University of Nagpur, claiming a half share in the estate of her deceased brother-in-law, R.B. Laxminarayan, on the ground that she was entitled to it as a tenant in common with him. The defendant denied her claim, contending that the estate was the self-acquired property of R.B. Laxminarayan or, alternatively, that it was the joint family property of R.B. Laxminarayan and his brother Gangadhar Rao, and that on Gangadhar Rao's death R.B. Laxminarayan became the sole owner by survivorship. The lower Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim. On appeal, the High Court held that the estate was not the self-acquired property of R.B. Laxminarayan but belonged equally to him and Gangadhar Rao, either as co-owners or co-parceners. The Court further held that the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and R.B. Laxminarayan, by which the plaintiff had relinquished all claims to the estate, was voidable at the instance of the plaintiff because it was induced by undue influence. The Court also held that the settlement deed, which was part of the compromise, was not validly registered and could not affect the immovable property. The Court accordingly decreed the plaintiff's claim to a half share in the immovable property and directed a partition of the same.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, Buchibai, filed a suit against the defendant, the University of Nagpur, claiming a half share in the estate of her deceased brother-in-law, R.B. Laxminarayan, on the ground that she was entitled to it as a tenant in common with him. The defendant denied her claim, contending that the estate was the self-acquired property of R.B. Laxminarayan or, alternatively, that it was the joint family property of R.B. Laxminarayan and his brother Gangadhar Rao, and that on Gangadhar Rao's death R.B. Laxminarayan became the sole owner by survivorship. The lower Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the estate was not the self-acquired property of R.B. Laxminarayan but belonged equally to him and Gangadhar Rao, either as co-owners or co-parceners. The Court further held that the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and R.B. Laxminarayan, by which the plaintiff had relinquished all claims to the estate, was voidable at the instance of the plaintiff because it was induced by undue influence. The Court also held that the settlement deed, which was part of the compromise, was not validly registered and could not affect the immovable property. The Court accordingly decreed the plaintiff's claim to a half share in the immovable property and directed a partition of the same.

Issues: 1. Whether the estate was the self-acquired property of R.B. Laxminarayan or the joint family property of R.B. Laxminarayan and Gangadhar Rao? 2. Whether the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and R.B. Laxminarayan was valid and binding on the plaintiff? 3. Whether the settlement deed, which was part of the compromise, was validly registered?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the estate was not the self-acquired property of R.B. Laxminarayan but belonged equally to him and Gangadhar Rao, either as co-owners or co-parceners, based on the following: a. The presumption that they took as tenants in common has not been rebutted. b. The evidence showed that the two brothers were joint in residence, food and worship and that there was a common purse upon which either drew according to his needs. c. The revenue records showed that an occupancy field in mauza Singori in the Ramtek tahsil was recorded in the name of Gangadhar Rao alone, and that malik-makbuza, absolute occupancy and occupancy fields in mauza Waregaon were recorded in the names of Laxminarayan and Gangadhar Rao and the widow of Gopalkrishna, as were the two occupancy fields in mauza Bidbin that had been acquired by Kakolam in 1897. d. In a letter written in May 1927 by R.B. Laxminarayan to Gangadhar Rao at Poona he stated that he was sending Rs. 515 as the sub-lease money of the Singori field for the current year. 2. The Court held that the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and R.B. Laxminarayan was voidable at the instance of the plaintiff because it was induced by undue influence, based on the following: a. R.B. Laxminarayan was in a position to dominate the will of Buchibai and to use that position to obtain an unfair advantage over her. b. Buchibai was persuaded and overawed by R.B. Laxminarayan into agreeing to his terms, partly because it solved her difficulties for the time being and partly because she thought that the entire estate would go eventually to Balmukund. 3. The Court held that the settlement deed, which was part of the compromise, was not validly registered and could not affect the immovable property, based on the following: a. The sub-registrar, who registered the document, had no territorial jurisdiction to do so. b. The registration must therefore be ignored, and under section 49 of the Registration Act the document cannot affect any immovable property comprised therein.

Final Decision: The Court decreed the plaintiff's claim to a half share in the immovable property and directed a partition of the same.