Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NAVIN SINHA, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
Raja Ram – Appellant
Versus
Jai Prakash Singh and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2896 of 2009
Decided On : 11-09-2019
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 31 – Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 14 and 16 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 111 – Execution of sale-deed – Validity of – Undue influence – Except for a bald statement in plaint that deceased was mentally impaired there is no evidence whatsoever of his mental status – There can be no presumption with regard to same only because of old age to equate it with complete loss of mental faculties by senility or dementia – Ageing is a process which affects individuals differently at distinguishable ages – Sale deed executed by deceased has not been assailed by appellant on the ground that deceased was devoid of power of reasoning, because of mental impairment – There is no evidence of any such rapid deterioration in condition of deceased in two years – Deceased on account of his advanced age may have been old and infirm with a deteriorating eye sight, and unable to move freely – Hardness of hearing by old age cannot be equated with deafness – Plaintiff, despite being son of deceased, except for bald statement in plaint, has not led any evidence in support of his averments – Deceased appeared before Sub-Registrar for registration – It demolishes entire case of plaintiff that deceased was bed ridden – Deceased had acknowledged receipt of entire consideration in presence of Sub-Registrar only after which deed was executed and registered – Sale deed being a registered instrument, there shall be a presumption in favour of defendants – Onus for rebuttal lay on plaintiff which he failed to discharge – Original defendants were in a fiduciary relationship with deceased – Their conduct in looking after deceased and his wife in old age may have influenced thinking of deceased – But that per se cannot lead to only irresistible conclusion that original defendants were in a position to dominate will of deceased or that sale deed executed was unconscionable – Law and life run together – No reason to interfere with concurrent findings arrived at by two courts – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 9, 10, 11 and 17)
(B) Administration of Justice – Application of Law – There can be no application of law sans facts of a case – Primary ingredients of law need to be first established by proper pleading supported by relevant evidence – Cases cannot be decided on assumptions or presumptions. (Para 16)
Facts of Case:
Appellant is aggrieved by order allowing second appeal preferred by defendants. High Court set aside order of First Appellate Court which had allowed the appeal of appellant and set aside order dismissing appellants suit. Primary question for consideration is physical condition of the deceased and his capacity to execute sale deed. Second question for consideration is if original defendants nos.1 and 2 exercised undue influence over deceased in having sale deed executed in favour of defendant no.1 because of physical infirmity of deceased on account of his old age.
Findings of Court:
First appellate court, completely erred in appreciation of facts and evidence in the case. There can be no application of law sans the facts of a case. Primary ingredients of the law need to be first established by proper pleading supported by relevant evidence. Cases cannot be decided on assumptions or presumptions. We do not think that the present calls for exercise of any discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution as a fourth court of appeal.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points:- The judgment discusses that mere old age or infirmity without evidence of mental incapacity does not prove undue influence (paras in p_9, p_10, p_11). (!) (!) (!) - It states that undue influence requires pleading with full particulars and cannot be inferred from relations alone; burden shifts under specific sections after prima facie case (paras in p_12, p_11, p_13, p_19). (!) (!) (!) (!) - The registered sale-deed carries a presumption of correctness, which the plaintiff must rebut (p_10). (!) - The onus to prove good faith in transactions where one party stands in a position of active confidence lies on the party in that position (p_22). (!) - The conclusion that there is no sufficient evidence of undue influence and that courts should not interfere with concurrent findings (p_17, p_17). (!) - The law emphasizes that there can be no application of law sans facts; proper pleadings supported by evidence are required (paras in p_1, p_6). (!) (!) - The decision notes that mere care or protection in family relations does not automatically establish undue influence (p_11). (!)
JUDGMENT :
NAVIN SINHA, J.
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order allowing the second appeal preferred by the defendants. The High Court set aside the order of the First Appellate Court which had allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order dismissing the appellants suit.
2. The plaintiff and defendant no. 2 are brothers. Defendant no. 1 was the wife of defendant no. 2. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are sons of deceased defendant no. 1. Original plaintiff no. 2, another brother, has chosen not to pursue the appeal. The plaintiffs alleged that the original defendants obtained the sale-deed dated 02.03.1970 from their father Vaijai, since deceased, in favour of defendant no. 1, fraudulently, by deceit and undue influence because of old age and infirmity of the deceased and who was living with the defendants. The suit was dismissed. The appellate court allowed the appeal holding that the defendants had failed to discharge their burden of being in a position to dominate the will of the deceased by undue influence. The High Court reversed the order of the first appellate court and restored the dismissal of the suit.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was old, infirm, bedridden and sick for approximately the last 8 to 10 years. His mental faculties were also impaired. He was therefore entirely dependent on the original defendants who were therefore in a position to exercise undue influence over him. The deceased expired on 21.04.1971 within ten months of the execution of the sale-deed. The witnesses to the sale-deed were related to defendant no. 2. It had not been established that full consideration had been paid. Defendant no. 1 had no source of income to pay the purchase price. The wife of the deceased has not been examined as witness. The defendants did not lead the evidence of the Sub-Registrar who had registered the sale-deed. The deceased had not sold any land to third persons in the year 1968 as contended by the defendants.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendants submitted that under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 the initial onus lay on the plaintiffs by establishing a prima-facie case for undue influence and only then the onus would shift to them. The necessary pleadings in respect of the same were completely lacking. The First Appellate Court wrongly shifted the burden upon the respondents. The deceased may have been old and infirm, but he was not deprived of his mental faculties so as not to know the nature of documents executed by him. He was alive approximately for ten months after the execution of the deed, but never questioned the same. The deceased had executed another sale-deed two years earlier in 1968, Exhibit 10 in favour of third persons which has not been questioned by the appellant. It establishes that the deceased was not in a condition where undue influence could be exercised over him. There can be no presumptions merely on account of his old age. DW-1 was a witness to the sale-deed and was present at the time of registration. The deceased admitted before the sub registrar having received a sum of Rs. 2,000/- earlier and Rs. 4,000/- was paid at the time of registration. The Sub-Registrar has not recorded any adverse inferences about the condition or capacity of the deceased at the time of registration. A registered instrument will carry a presumption about its correctness unless rebutted.
5. Reliance in support of the submissions was placed on Anil Rishi vs. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558, Jamila Begum (D) through LRs. vs. Shami Mohd. (D) through LRs. and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 727, Bishundeo Narain and Others vs. Seogeni Rai and Jagernath, 1951 SCR 548, Subhas Chandra Das Mushib vs. Ganga Prosad Das Mushib and Others, 1967 (1) SCR 331 and Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul and Another vs. Patima Maity and Others, (2004) 9 SCC 468.
6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The primary question for our consideration is the physical
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
