Case: Bellachi (Dead) by LR Vs. Pakeeran

ordinarily are binding on the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court in Afsar Sheikh and Anr. Vs. Soleman Bibi and Ors. reported in [1976 (2) SCC 142 ] held as under: "4. In his written statement, Afsar defendant denied the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. He averred that his grandmother was the sister of the plaintiffs mother. The defendants father died when he was an infant. The plaintiff brought him up as a son. Since his very infancy, the defendant has been living with the plaintiff, managing his affairs and treating him as his father. The defendant further stated that the plaintiff has transferred 10 to 12 bighas of land to his natural son and an equal area to his second wife. Out of love and affection, the plaintiff conferred a similar benefit on the defendant and voluntarily executed the hiba-bil-ewaz after receiving from the done a dhoti as a symbolic consideration therefor. He denied that the plaintiff at the time of the gift was too old and infirm. According to him, the plaintiff was not more than 75 years of age. He further averred that he was in possession of the suit lands ever since the execution of the hiba." It was observed: "20. It is well-settled that a question whether a person was in a position to dominate the will of another and procured a certain deed by undue influence, is a question of fact, and a finding thereon is a finding of fact, and if arrived at fairly, in accordance with the procedure prescribed. is not liable to be reopened in second appeal (Satgur Prasad v. Har Narain Das; Ladli Prasad Jaiswal v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd.)." 14. It is not the case of the appellant that the finding of the first appellate court on the question of fraud, undue influence etc. is vitiated by any illegality, omission or error or defect as envisaged under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure.15. Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act provides for as to what constitutes undue influence. Relationship between the parties so as to enable one of them to dominate the will of the other is a sine qua non for constitution of undue influence. Findings of fact as noticed hereinbefore have been arrived at by both the trial judge as also the first appellate court that the respondent was not in a position to dominate the plaintiffs will.16. In a given case it is possible to hold that when an illiterate, pardanashin woman executes a deed of sale, the burden would be on the vendee to prove that it was the deed of sale was a genuine document. It is, however, a registered document. It carries with it a presumption that it was executed in accordance with law. Again a concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at that she was not an illiterate woman or she was incapable of understanding as to what she had done.17. Mr. Dinesh has placed strong reliance upon a decision of this Court in Mst. Sethani Vs. Bhana reported in [1993 Supp. (4) SCC 639] wherein having regard to the fact had been arrived at from the courts below, it was held: "4. The facts are so glaring, still the onus to prove the issue has been over-emphasised. It is true that the initial onus to prove undue influence was on the plaintiff-appellant, but the onus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was easily discharged. It is the respondent who had obtained the sale deed in his favour way back on April 1, 1963 by a registered sale deed, which saw the light at a late stage of the trial. From the certified copy thereof it was evident that no consideration passed at the time of the sale. Nobody from the registration office was examined to explain the sale. No evidence was led by the respondent to discharge the onus that the sale deed was executed under no undue influence, even though the vendor was old, blind, illiterate and a tribal woman totally at the mercy of the respondent, with whom she was living till her death. The parties were so situated that Bhana-respondent was in a position to dominate the will of Putlibai and was in a position to obtain an unfair advantage over her. It is also in evidence that Putlibai was dependent on the respondent. The trial court had given cogent reasons to come to the finding that the sale deed was vitiated on account of the condition in which Putlibai was put due to her relationship with Bhana-respondent, as well as the manner and nature of the transaction." 18. The factual matrix involved in the aforementioned case was, thus, absolutely different. Furthermore both the courts below have held that the plaint does not contained any particulars of undue influence, fraud etc. The law does not envisage raising of a presumption in favour of undue influence. A party alleging the same must prove the same subject of course to just exceptions. In M. Rangasamy Vs. Rengammal and Ors. [(2003) 7 SCC 683] , this court has held as under:- "Further, a perusal of the plaint shows that the execution of Exhibits B-6 and B-7 has, in fact, not been disputed by the plaintiffs. The case set up by them is that the first defendant, exercising dominating influence over his grandmother, got the two settlement deeds executed from her exploiting her old age, dim eyesight and mental condition. It has been further pleaded that the first defendant had a fiduciary relationship with his grandmother and, therefore, though normally it would be for a person who pleads undue influence to establish the said fact, but in view of this relationship, it is for the first defendant to prove that the gift deeds were the result of free exercise of independent will by the executant." 19. The said decision will apply in all fours in this case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]14. It is not the case of the appellant that the finding of the first appellate court on the question of fraud, undue influence etc. is vitiated by any illegality, omission or error or defect as envisaged under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure.15. Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act provides for as to what constitutes undue influence. Relationship between the parties so as to enable one of them to dominate the will of the other is a sine qua non for constitution of undue influence. Findings of fact as noticed hereinbefore have been arrived at by both the trial judge as also the first appellate court that the respondent was not in a position to dominate the plaintiffs will.16. In a given case it is possible to hold that when an illiterate, pardanashin woman executes a deed of sale, the burden would be on the vendee to prove that it was the deed of sale was a genuine document. It is, however, a registered document. It carries with it a presumption that it was executed in accordance with law. Again a concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at that she was not an illiterate woman or she was incapable of understanding as to what she had done.17. Mr. Dinesh has placed strong reliance upon a decision of this Court in Mst. Sethani Vs. Bhana reported in [1993 Supp. (4) SCC 639] wherein having regard to the fact had been arrived at from the courts below, it wasThe facts are so glaring, still the onus to prove the issue has beenIt is true that the initial onus to prove undue influence was on thebut the onus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was easily discharged. It is the respondent who had obtained the sale deed in his favour way back on April 1, 1963 by a registered sale deed, which saw the light at a late stage of the trial. From the certified copy thereof it was evident that no consideration passed at the time of the sale. Nobody from the registration office was examined to explain the sale. No evidence was led by the respondent to discharge the onus that the sale deed was executed under no undue influence, even though the vendor was old, blind, illiterate and a tribal woman totally at the mercy of the respondent, with whom she was living till her death. The parties were so situated thatwas in a position to dominate the will of Putlibai and was in a position to obtain an unfair advantage over her. It is also in evidence that Putlibai was dependent on the respondent. The trial court had given cogent reasons to come to the finding that the sale deed was vitiated on account of the condition in which Putlibai was put due to her relationship withas well as the manner and nature of thefactual matrix involved in the aforementioned case was, thus, absolutely different.Furthermore both the courts below have held that the plaint does not contained any particulars of undue influence, fraud etc. The law does not envisage raising of a presumption in favour of undue influence. A party alleging the same must prove the same subject of course to just exceptions. In M. Rangasamy Vs. Rengammal and Ors. [(2003) 7 SCC 683] , this court has held asa perusal of the plaint shows that the execution of Exhibitshas, in fact, not been disputed by the plaintiffs. The case set up by them is that the first defendant, exercising dominating influence over his grandmother, got the two settlement deeds executed from her exploiting her old age, dim eyesight and mental condition. It has been further pleaded that the first defendant had a fiduciary relationship with his grandmother and, therefore, though normally it would be for a person who pleads undue influence to establish the said fact, but in view of this relationship, it is for the first defendant to prove that the gift deeds were the result of free exercise of independent will by thesaid decision will apply in all fours in this case.