Contract Act, 1872: s. 16 – Undue influence – Inference of – Execution of sale deed by father in favour of his son-respondent – Allegation by appellant-son that respondent no. 1 exercised undue influence over the father in having the sale deed executed in favour of respondent because of physical infirmity of the father on account of his old age and that the father was living with the respondents – Held: To infer undue influence merely because a sibling was looking after the family elder, is an extreme proposition which cannot be countenanced in absence of sufficient and adequate evidence – On facts, pleadings in the plaint are completely bereft of any details or circumstances with regard to undue influence exercised by respondents over the deceased – Mere bald statement is attributed to the infirmity of the deceased father – Deceased was not completely physically and mentally incapacitated – Respondents were in a fiduciary relationship with the deceased – Their conduct in looking after the parents in old age may have influenced their thinking – But that per se cannot lead to the conclusion that the original respondents were thus, in a position to dominate the will of the deceased or that the sale deed executed was unconscionable – Onus would shift upon the original respondents u/s. 16 r/w s. 111 of the Evidence Act, only after plaintiff would have established a prima facie case – Sale deed being a registered instrument, there shall be a presumption in favour of the respondents – Onus for rebuttal lay on the appellant which he failed to discharge – First appellate court erred in appreciating the facts and evidence in the case – Cases cannot be decided on assumptions or presumptions – Thus, the order of the High Court setting aside the order of the first appellate court which had set aside the order dismissing the appellant’s suit does not call for interference – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 111. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The deceased undisputedly was over 80 years and above in age. The plaintiff pleaded that by reason of age and sickness, the deceased was unable to move and walk, with deteriorated eye sight due to cataract. The mental capacity of the deceased was impaired. The impairment in relation to a human being is defined as total or partial loss of a body function, total or partial loss of a part of the body, malfunction of a part of the body and malfunction or disfigurement of a part of the body. Except for a bald statement in the plaint that the deceased was mentally impaired there is no evidence whatsoever of his mental status. There can be no presumption with regard to the 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. The sale deed executed by the deceased in favour of two people, two years earlier in 1968 has not been assailed by the appellant on the ground that the deceased was devoid of the power of reasoning, because of mental impairment. There is no evidence of any such rapid deterioration in the condition of the deceased in these two years. [Para 9][119-A-D]
Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Third Edn Reprint, 2009 – referred to.
1.2 The deceased on account of his advanced age may have been old and infirm with a deteriorating eye sight, and unable to move freely. There is no credible evidence that he was bed ridden. Hardness of hearing by old age cannot be equated with deafness. The plaintiff, despite being the son of the deceased, except for bald statement in the plaint, has not led any evidence in support of his averments. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased appeared before the sub-registrar for registration. It demolishes the entire case of the plaintiff that the deceased was bed ridden. He had put his thumb impression in presence of the sub–registrar after the sale deed had been read over and explained to him. The deceased had acknowledged receipt of the entire consideration in presence of the sub-registrar only after which the deed was executed and registered. The wife of the deceased had accompanied him to the office of the sub-registrar. The sale deed being a registered instrument, there shall be a presumption in favour of the defendants. The onus for rebuttal lay on the plaintiff which he failed to discharge. [Para 10][119-E-G]
1.3 The pleadings in the plaint are completely bereft of any details or circumstances with regard to the nature, manner or kind of undue influence exercised by the original defendants over the deceased. A mere bald statement has been made attributed to the infirmity of the deceased. The deceased was not completely physically and mentally incapacitated. There can be no doubt that the original defendants were in a fiduciary relationship with the deceased. Their conduct in looking after the deceased and his wife in old age may have influenced the thinking of the deceased. But that per se cannot lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the original defendants were therefore, in a position to dominate the will of the deceased or that the sale deed executed was unconscionable. The onus would shift upon the original defendants under Section 16 of the Contract Act read with Section 111 of the Evidence Act, only after plaintiff would have established a prima facie case. [Para 11][120-B-D]
1.4 In every cast, creed, religion and civilized society, looking after the elders of the family is considered a sacred and pious duty. Today it has become a matter of serious concern. The Parliament taking note of the same enacted the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. In the changing times and social mores, that to straightway infer undue influence merely because a sibling was looking after the family elder, is an extreme proposition which cannot be countenanced in absence of sufficient and adequate evidence. Any other interpretation by inferring a reverse burden of proof straightway, on those who were taking care of the elders, as having exercised undue influence can lead to very undesirable consequences. It may not necessarily lead to neglect, but can certainly create doubts and apprehensions leading to lack of full and proper care under the fear of allegations with regard to exercise of undue influence. Law and life run together. If certain members of the family are looking after the elderly and others by choice or by compulsion of vocation are unable to do so, there is bound to be more affinity between the elder members of the family with those who are looking after them day to day. [Para 11][120-E-H; 121-A]
1.5 The first appellate court erred in appreciation of the facts and evidence in the case. There can be no application of the law sans the facts of a case. The 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. The instant case does not call for exercise of any discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Para 16][122-E]
Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul and anr. v. Patima Maity and Ors. (2004) 9 SCC 468 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 496 – distinguished.
Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558 : [2006]
1 Suppl. SCR 659; Jamila Begum (D) thr. L.Rs. v. Shami Mohd. (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 727; Bishundeo Narain and Ors. v. Seogeni Rai and
Jagernath [1951] SCR 548; Subhas Chandra Das
Mushib v. Ganga Prosad Das Mushib and Ors. [1967]
1 SCR 331; Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan
Kul and Anr. v. Patima Maity and Ors. (2004) 9 SCC
468 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 496 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.