Case: Lakshmi Amma &amp; Another Vs. Talengalanarayana Bhatta &amp; Another

The following pedigree table will be helpful in understanding the facts:2. The suit out of which the appeal has arisen was instituted in the name of Narasimha Bhatta who was stated to be of weak intellect by his next friend and daughter Adithiamma for a declaration that the will dated September 30, 1955 said to have been executed by him was invalid and also for the cancellation of the deed of settlement dated December 13, 1955, which had also been executed by Narasimha Bhatta in favour of the first respondent and for other incidental reliefs.The case as laid in the plaint was that the plaintiff, who was of advanced age, was suffering from diabetes for a long time and his physical and mental condition was very weak. Respondent No. 1 was at first unsuccessful in getting a will executed by him by which he bequeathed almost all his properties to the said respondent. In December 1955 he was taken to Mangalore by respondent No. 1 and there the latter managed to get executed Ext.by him. By this deed of settlement the entire properties which were considerable were given to respondent No. 1, the plaintiff reserving only a life interest for himself besides making some provision for the maintenance of his wife Lakshmiamma. Respondent No. 1 was able to obtain benefits under the settlement deed for himself owing to the weak intellect and old age of the plaintiff. A declaration was thus claimed that the will and the settlement deed was null and void and were not binding on the plaintiff. Respondent No. 1 contested the suit. He denied the existence of the will and maintained that the deed of settlement was not executed under undue influence or when the plaintiff was in a weak state of mind.3. A number of issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties. The trial Court by its judgment dated March 31, 1959, decreed t he suit holding that the will was invalid and that the deed of settlement Ext.was also invalid. It was held that the plaintiff was a person of weak intellect and was not in a position to take care of himself and manage his affairs properly on the date of the execution of the aforesaid documents. The respondent preferred an appeal to the High Court. After hearing the parties the High Court directed that the evidence of three persons, two of whom were doctors and the third was a document writer, should be recorded by the trial Court and the record submitted to it. After the receipt of the record the appeal was again heard. During the pendency of the appeal the plaintiff died on October 8, 1959 and his widow Lakshmiamma and two daughters, Adithiamma and Parmeshwariamma were impleaded as legal representatives by an order dated November 30, 1959. The High Court reversed the judgment of the Court below holding that the gift contained in Ext.was a spontaneous act of the plaintiff and he had exercised an independent will in the matter of its execution.

Court's reasoning:
5. The first noticeable feature is that the deed of settlement on the face of it was an unnatural and unconscionable document.Narasimha Bhatta made negligible provision for his wife who was his third wife, the first two having died before he married her. She was left mainly to the mercy of respondent No. 1. Admittedly there was a residential house and no provision was made regarding her right to reside in that house till her death. Apparently there was no reason why he should have left nothing to his two daughters or to his otherand given his entire estate to only one grandson namely respondent No. 1.It would, therefore, appear that Narasimha Bhatta was not even consulted by the scribe nor was any draft made with his approval which was given to the scribe from which he prepared the document Ext.The trial Judge did not place any reliance and in our opinion rightly on the evidence of K. Shaik Ummar, D. W. 4, the Jointof Mangalore. His statement has not impressed us as reliable. He said that the wife of Narasimha Bhatta, namely, Lakshmiamma was present during the proceedings for registration and she raised no objection to the document being registered. He admitted that the hands of the executor were trembling at the time he appendedIn spite of a lengthynothing was brought out to show why this lady who is the grandmother of Respondent No. 1 and who would be expected to be impartial in the dispute between her children and grandchildren should prejure herself and make a false statement. It is true that she would be interested, to a certain extent, in getting the document cancelled or set aside but we see no reason to brush aside her statement with regard to the condition of Narasimha Bhatta at the time the document was executed and the circumstances in which it was got registered. It may be mentioned that the trial Court also relied on her evidence. We do not find any cogent or convincing reasons in the judgment of the High Court for disbelieving Lakshmiamma nor are we satisfied that the reasons given for accepting the evidence of Upendra Naik D. W. 5 and discarding the testimony of the Scribe C. W. 1 are satisfactory. It is also difficult to comprehend how the High Court thought that the terms of Ext.were not unconscionable enough as to raise a fair amount of suspicion in the matter. In view of the unnatural character of the dispositions made in Ext.coupled with the other facts and circumstances mentioned above the burden shifted to respondent No. 1 to establish that Ext.was executed by Narasimha Bhatta voluntarily and without any external pressure or influence while he was not of infirm mind and was fully aware of the dispositions or gifts which he was making in favour of respondent No.case sheets, if produced, would have shown what were the exact ailments from which Narasimha Bhatta was suffering when he was in the Nursing Home and what treatment was given to him under the directions of Dr. Ganessan who maintained that his suspicion was that a liver abscess had ruptured into the lung due to dysentery. In the absence of the record of the Nursing Home or any other record we find it difficult to accept what Dr. Ganessan has stated about the mental condition of Narasimha Bhatta at the time when the document Ext.was executed and registered. Dr. U. P. Mallayyas evidence was also not believed by the trial Court and after going through his evidence we are not satisfied that his statement could be relied upon with regard to the true condition, physical as well as mental, of Narasimha Bhatta at the time Ext.1. On behalf of the plaintiff certain doctors were produced.The trial Court had, while deciding the question whether the suit should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, recorded an order on March 15, 1957. In those proceedings Dr. Kambli had been examined as a witness. That doctor treated Narasimha Bhatta from March 6, 1956 to March 12, 1956 and he had issued a certificate Ext.wherein it was stated that Narasimha Bhatta was in a weak condition and was subject to loss of memory attended by mental derangement and dotage. The observation of the trial Court itself was that when Narasimha Bhatta, under its directions, was brought to the Court on March 11, 1957, he looked the blank and did not answer when the Court asked him what his name was. According to what Narasimha Bhatta stated he was 25 or 30 years of age, at that time. He could not tell the name of his wife and he was bodily carried by two persons to the judges chamber. It was, therefore, found that he was a person of weak mind and was incapable of making his own decisions and conducting his affairs. It may be that the condition of Narasimha Bhatta on March 11, 1957 may not throw much light on what his condition was in December 1955 but the evidence of Dr. Kambli who had examined him only a couple of months after the execution of the document shows that Narasimha Bhatta was suffering from various symptoms which are to be found in a case of advanced senility particularly when a person is also suffering from a disease like diabetesa wasting disease.12. We are satisfied that Narasimha Bhatta who was of advanced age and was in a state of senility and who was suffering from diabetes and other ailments was taken by respondent No. 1 who had gone to reside in the house at Sodhankur village a little earlier in a taxi along with Lakshmiamma to the Nursing Home in Mangalore where he was got admitted as a patient. No draft was prepared with the approval or under the directions of Narasimha Bhatta nor were any instructions given by him to the Scribe in the matter of drawing up of the document Ext.application was also made to the JointMangalore for registering the document at the Nursing Home by someone whose name has not been disclosed nor has the application been produced to enable the Court to find out the reasons for which a prayer was made that the registration be done at the Nursing Home. Lakshmiamma the wife of Narasimha Bhatta who was the only other close relation present has stated in categorical terms that the document was got executed by using pressure on Narasimha Bhatta while he was of an infirm mind and was not in a fit condition to realize what he was doing. The hospital record was not produced nor did the doctor who attended on Narasimha Bhatta at the Nursing Home produce any authentic data or record to support their testimony. Even the will was not produced by respondent No. 1 presumably because it must have contained recitals about the weak state of health of Narasimha Bhatta. The dispositions which were made by Ext.as already pointed out before, were altogether unnatural and no valid reason or explanation has been given why Narasimha Bhatta should have given everything to respondent 1 and even deprived himself of the right to deal with the property as an owner during his lifetime.All these facts and circumstances raised a grave suspicion as to the genuineness of the execution of the document Ext.and it was for respondent No. 1 to dispel the same. In our opinion he has entirely failed to do so with the result that the appeal must succeed and it is allowed with costs in this Court.