Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a judgment and decree dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad in Special Civil Suit No.491 of 2017. The suit was filed by the original plaintiffs (respondent Nos.1 to 5) seeking declaration, permanent injunction, and cancellation of a sale deed executed by defendant No.1 (respondent No.6) in favor of defendant No.2 (the appellant). The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are family members; defendant No.1 is the brother-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and uncle of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5. The land in question, situated at village Chainpur, Taluka Ghatlodiya, bearing Block/Survey No.13, originally belonged to their ancestor Babaji Bapuji Thakore. Upon his death, the names of his heirs were entered in the revenue records. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant No.1, without any legal necessity, executed a sale deed of the suit property in favor of defendant No.2 for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000, but no consideration was actually paid. They contended that the sale was fraudulent and without authority. The trial court decreed the suit, cancelling the sale deed and granting permanent injunction against the defendants. The appellant, being the purchaser, challenged the decree. The High Court, after examining the evidence, found that the plaintiffs had proved that no consideration was paid and that the sale deed was executed under suspicious circumstances. The court held that the sale deed was voidable and liable to be set aside. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the trial court's decree.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Cancellation of Sale Deed - Fraud and Lack of Consideration - The plaintiffs sought cancellation of a sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favor of defendant No.2, alleging that the sale was without consideration and fraudulent. The court held that the sale deed was voidable as it was executed without payment of consideration and based on misrepresentation, and thus liable to be set aside. (Paras 1-27) B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Fraud - The burden of proving fraud lies on the party alleging it. The plaintiffs successfully discharged this burden by showing that no consideration was paid and that the sale deed was executed under suspicious circumstances. (Paras 15-20) C) Specific Relief Act - Section 17 - Contract Voidable - A contract induced by fraud is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained. The court applied this principle to cancel the sale deed. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favor of defendant No.2 (appellant) is valid and binding on the plaintiffs, and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to cancellation of the sale deed and permanent injunction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the trial court's decree cancelling the sale deed and granting permanent injunction.
Law Points
- Sale deed without consideration is void
- Fraud vitiates consent
- Burden of proof on party alleging fraud
- Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act
