The main legal point established is the requirement to prove fraud and lack of consideration in a sale-deed, especially in the context of fiduciary relations.

Headnote:
Fraud - Sale-Deed - Consideration - Fiduciary Relations
Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a suit for annulment of a sale-deed, alleging fraud. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to prove fraud. The first appellate court affirmed the decision, leading to the second appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant failed to prove fraud, as he did not deny the signatures on the sale-deed and failed to produce evidence to support his claims. The court also noted the appellant's possession of the property and his actions subsequent to the execution of the sale-deed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's claim of fraud in the execution of the sale-deed, the lack of consideration, and the fiduciary relations between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the appellant's failure to prove fraud and lack of consideration, as well as the absence of evidence to support his claims. The court also considered the fiduciary relations between the parties.
Final Decision: The second appeal was summarily dismissed, and the judgment of the trial court and the appellate court was affirmed. No costs were awarded.

JUDGEMENT

1 . The appellant/plaintiff filed the original suit No.38-A/2013 for annulment of the registered sale-deed dated 22.11.2018 by which the suit house No.122/2 Pardeshipura, Indore on the ground that the sale-deed was executed playing fraud on plaintiff.

2 . On that respondents that are daughters of the second wife of the plaintiff has taken the defence that the sale-deed was executed after taking the consideration amount and the suit was filed in the year 2012, the suit be dismissed.

3. The trial Court after framing the issues recorded the evidence of the parties and dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiff failed to prove the fact of fraud. Being aggrieved with the judgment of the trial Court the first appeal was filed before the District Judge, Indore that was registered as first appeal No.39/2015. The first appellate Court by impugned judgment dated 03.09.2019 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court hence, this second appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that respondents are the daughters of second wife Kalabai, his first wife Ushabai and the respondent/defendants were born to Kalabai from her first husband.

5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the plaintiff has executed a Will in the favour of respondent/defendants then there was no need to execute the sale- deed and on the pretext that some mistakes have occurred in the Will.

To correct those mistakes they brought the plaintiff to Registrar's Office and in guise of correction of the Will they received the signatures of the plaintiff on the sale-deed. He has not executed any sale-deed in favour of Kalabai or the respondents. No consideration amount was passed to him, but in para 3 of the sale-deed it is stated that Rs.7,18,500/- were given to plaintiff, but respondents have not proved that consideration was given to plaintiffs.

6. In cross-examination it was asked to plaintiff that the consideration amount was also given through the cheque but the defendants have not produced the cheque or their bank account statement to demonstrate that the consideration amount was given to plaintiff.

7. The appellant was in fiduciary relations so, he has signed the documents. The witness of the sale-deed are husbands of the respondents so, he has not examined the witnesses thus, it was clearly proved before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court that the defendant/respondents have taken undue advantage of fiduciary relations and no consideration was passed to the plaintiff. So, the sale-deed is null void and that can be safely declared. But trial Court as well as appellate Court has committed an error and dismissed the suit and the appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of Dayawantibai w/o Tulsiram Lodhi v. Smt. Sarula Bai and others 2006(4) M.P.L.J 346, Ravi Shankar v. Rajendra Kumar & Anr. 2007(III) MPJR- CG 83 and the judgment of Lakshmi & Others v. Muthusamy 2012 1 CTC 53 to strengthen his arguments that consideration amount was not passed and to pass the title through sale-deed it is necessary as property is immovable property to pass the consideration, delivery of possession are mandatory, to complete the transaction of sale. It is the duty of the respondent to prove that they have paid the whole consideration amount and if consideration is not paid before the Sub-Registrar the sale-deed be deemed to be forged. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the plaintiff was in possession till 2012.

9. Thus, no consideration was paid to plaintiff and the possession was not handed over to the respondents hence, it was proved before the trial Court that the sale-deed is forged and they have failed to produce the documents pertaining to passing of the consideration amount hence, the adverse inference be drawn on that point, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of Sanjay Kumar v. C.E.O Janpad Panchayat 2010(3) MPLJ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document