Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal arising from a suit for possession of property based on a registered sale deed dated 04.07.1983 executed by Smt. Bhagubai in favor of the plaintiff-respondent. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court decreed it, directing the defendant-appellant to hand over possession. The defendant appealed, raising substantial questions of law regarding the burden of proof in cases of undue influence and fiduciary relationship. The High Court noted that the plaintiff was in a fiduciary relationship with the deceased Bhagubai, who was an illiterate old lady, and that the defendant disputed the legality and genuineness of the sale deed. The court held that the burden lay on the plaintiff to show that the deed was not obtained under undue influence or fraud, and that the lower appellate court had not properly considered this. The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the lower appellate court was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Undue Influence - Burden of Proof - Section 16 Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Where a party is in a fiduciary relationship with the other, the burden of proving that the contract was not induced by undue influence lies on the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. The court held that the plaintiff, being in a fiduciary relationship with the deceased illiterate lady, had the onus to show that the sale deed was not obtained by undue influence or fraud. (Paras 2-3)
B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Fiduciary Relationship - Section 111 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - When a person stands in a fiduciary relation to another, the burden of proving the good faith of a transaction is on the person in the position of active confidence. The court held that the lower appellate court failed to properly apply this principle, as the plaintiff was residing with the deceased and was in a position to dominate her will. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower appellate court erred in decreeing the suit for possession without properly considering the burden of proof regarding undue influence and fraud, given the fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased vendor.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, and remanded the matter to the lower appellate court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with a direction to decide the appeal within six months from the date of receipt of the record.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Undue influence
- Fiduciary relationship
- Sale deed
- Possession suit
- Section 16 Indian Contract Act
- 1872
- Section 111 Indian Evidence Act
Case Details
SECOND APPEAL NO. 179 OF 1993
Mr. Rahul S. Kate, Advocate, for appellants. Mr. A.B.Vagyani, Advocate for Respondent
Shri Lalsaheb Tukaram Dhabugade @ Namdev Tukaram Dhabugade, Since deceased through his L.Rs and representatives: 1.a) Smt. Indubai Namdev Dhabugade, 1.b) Anandrao Namdev Dhabugade, 1.c) Ravindra Namdev Dhabugade, 1.d) Sau. Chhaya Baban Yadav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against decree of possession in a civil suit based on a registered sale deed.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (original defendants) sought to set aside the decree of the lower appellate court directing them to hand over possession of the suit property to the respondent (plaintiff).
Filing Reason
The appellants disputed the legality and genuineness of the sale deed executed by Smt. Bhagubai in favor of the respondent, alleging undue influence and fraud due to the fiduciary relationship between the respondent and the deceased illiterate lady.
Previous Decisions
The trial court dismissed the suit on 27.08.1987. The lower appellate court (3rd Additional District Judge, Sangli) set aside the trial court's judgment and decreed the suit on 27.01.1993, directing the defendant to hand over possession.
Issues
Whether the lower appellate court erred in decreeing the suit without properly considering the burden of proof regarding undue influence and fraud, given the fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased vendor.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the respondent was in a fiduciary relationship with the deceased Bhagubai, who was an illiterate old lady, and that the burden lay on the respondent to show that the sale deed was not obtained under undue influence or fraud.
The respondent contended that the sale deed was valid and that the lower appellate court correctly decreed the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a party is in a fiduciary relationship with the other, the burden of proving that the contract was not induced by undue influence lies on the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. The lower appellate court failed to properly apply this principle and the burden of proof under Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Judgment Excerpts
When the evidence shows that the Respondent is in fiduciary relation with the deceased Bhagubai who was pretty old lady and when the Appellant is disputing the legality and genuineness of the document, the burden lies on the Respondent to show that the deed in question was not obtained under undue influence and fraud.
Looking to the fact that parties are real brothers inter-se and that the Respondent was residing in the house of Appellant and Bhagubai who is an illiterate lady, reasonable inference can be drawn that the respondent was in a position of dominating the will of the deceased Bhagubai, onus lies on the respondent to show that the transaction was not vitiated by undue influence.
Procedural History
Regular Civil Suit No. 70 of 1982 was filed by the plaintiff for possession based on a registered sale deed dated 04.07.1983. The trial court dismissed the suit on 27.08.1987. The plaintiff appealed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 414 of 1987, which was allowed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Sangli on 27.01.1993, decreeing the suit. The defendant filed the present second appeal, which was admitted on 07.04.1993 on substantial questions of law. The High Court allowed the appeal on 11.06.2015 and remanded the matter.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Contract Act, 1872: Section 16
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 111
