Ramathal and Ors. vs K. Rajamani (Dead) through Lrs. and Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

17 August 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 8830 of 2012

Result

Allowed

Bench

Vikram Nath, Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Citation

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 348 : 2023 INSC 737

Issue for consideration

The view of the High Court that before the Trial Court, there was neither any pleading nor any issue was framed with regard to the plea of non est factum and as such the First Appellate Court committed an error in determining the said plea in favour of the plaintiffs – Consequently, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Suit – Plaintiff instituted suit for declaration as the absolute owners of the suit properties and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction on the ground that there was misrepresentation in the General Power of Attorney – Dismissed by trial Court – First Appellate Court decided in favour of plaintiffs – The High Court proceeded to record a finding that there was neither any pleading nor any issue framed regarding the plea of non est factum and set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court – Appeal preferred by plaintiffs before the Supreme Court:

Headnote

Held: It is specifically averred in the plaint that only intention for executing the Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.2 was for developing the property in question into smaller plots and to get necessary approvals for the same from the relevant authorities – It is clearly stated in plaint that the plaintiffs were illiterate and had no means to get the above exercise carried out and as the defendant No.2 was well versed in dealing with Government Authorities, he could have helped them in developing the plots – Suit was instituted when plaintiff realized that the defendant had two additional clauses incorporated authorizing him to sell, gift, settle the plots in question and also to execute wherever necessary transfer of Patta Deeds – Plaintiff never intended the same – Issues framed by the trial Court

(i) whether the plaintiffs are absolute owner of the suit property and (ii) whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property would cover issue of non est factum – From a perusal of the plaint, it is more than clear that the plea of non est factum was well pleaded, in clear and strict terms – The First Appellate Court had appreciated and analyzed the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, to record a finding that plea of non est factum was proved – Judgment of the High Court set aside and that of the First Appellate Court maintained. [Paras 16, 25, 26 to 29] Maxim – Non est factum – When plea can be taken:

Held: A plea of non est factum can be taken by an executor or signatory of the deed to plead that the said document is invalid as its executor/signatory was mistaken about its character at the time of executing/signing it – It is a latin maxim which literally means “it is not the deed” – A plea of non est factum is a defence available in Contract Law allowing a person to escape the effect of a document which she/he may have executed/signed. [Para 17] Maxim – Non est factum – For successful plea of non-est factum requires:

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. The present appeal by the plaintiffs assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, whereby Second Appeal No. 648 of 2002 titled “N.Krishnasamy Mudaliar (D) and Ors. Vs. Ramathal and Ors.” was THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. [VIKRAM NATH, J.] allowed, after setting aside the judgement of the First Appellate Court, the order of the Trial Court was restored, and the suit of the plaintiff (present appellant) was dismissed. 2. The dispute relates to 110 cents of la

View Subscription Plans →