BELLACHI (DEAD) BY LR versus PAKEERAN

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 823 · Decided: 23-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 823 
., 
BELLACHI (DEAD) BY LR 
v. 
PAKE ERAN 
Civil Appeal No. 1785 of 2009 
MARCH 23, 2009 
. [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
A 
B 
s. 100 - Second appeal - Jurisdiction ofHigh Court -
HELD: High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of two c 
courts below if any substantial question of law arises for its 
consideration - Findings of courts below were not stated to 
have been vitiated by any illegality or omission or error or 
defects as envisaged by s.100. 
Or 6 r 4 - Suit challenging a sale deed as vitiated by D 
misrepresentation, undue influence, fraud and collusion -
HELD: The party alleging undue influence, fraud etc. must 
prove the same - Trial court as a/so the first appellate court 
having held that plaint did not contain any particulars of undue 
influence, fraud etc., High Court rightly dismissed the second E 
appeal. 
Contract Act, 1872: 
s. 16 ~ Undue influence - HELD: Relation between 
parties so as to enable one of them to dominate the will of the 
F 
other is sine qua non for constitution of undue influence - Trial 
court and first appellate court having arrived at the finding that 
... defendant was not in a position to dominate plaintiff's will, High 
Court rightly declined to interfere. 
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit challenging a sale G 
deed alleged to have been executed by her in favour of 
her younger brother, the defendant. It was contended that 
the sale deed was vitiated by misrepresentation, undue 
influence, fraud and collusion as the plaintiff was made 
823 
H 
824 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 
A to believe that she would obtain financial assistance for 
treatment of her husband's prolonged illness by executing 
the said document. The trial court dismissed the suit 
holding that the plaint did not satisfy the requirements of 
Or.6, r.4 CPC, as particulars of fraud and undue influence 
B were not pleaded and the plaintiff was not able to establish 
that the defendant had been in a position so as to unduly 
influence her or that the sale deed was executed by her 
under misrepresentation. The first appellate court affirmed 
the said findings. The second appeal of the plaintiff was 
c dismissed by the High Court. 
In the instant appeal filed by the plaintiff, it was 
contended for the appellant that the courts below 
committed an error of law in so far as they failed to take 
into consideration that the relationship between the 
,~ .. 
D vendor and vendee being that of sister and brother and 
the appellant being an illiterate old lady, the onus of proof 
was upon the defendant-respondent to show that the sale 
deed was genuine and amount of consideration had been 
received by vendor, and as no officer of Registration Office 
E was examined in this regard, the vendee must be held to 
have failed to discharge the onus. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The jurisdiction of the High Court in terms 
F of s.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is limited. It 
can interfere with the concurrent findings of two courts 
below if any substantial question of law arises for its 
consideration. Whether the respondent despite the fact 
that he was brother of the appellant was in a dominating 
position is essentially a question of fact. Per se it does 
G not give rise to a substantial question of law. [para 10) 
.. 
[829-E-F] 
Afsar Sheikh and Anr. Vs. Soleman Bibi and Ors.1976 
(2) sec 142 - relied on. 
H 
1.2 The trial court as also the first appellate court inter 
•, 
y 
",-
BELLACHI (DEAD) BY LR V 
PAKEERAN 
825 
alia held that the very basis of the claim of the appellant A 
was that the respondent had been very close to her and 
had been visiting her quite often and thus was a man of 
trust had not been established. A concurrent finding of 
fact has also been arrived at that the plaintiff was not a 
person wholly incapable of understanding things. It was B 
furthermore held that the plaintiff had sufficient funds for 
her own treatment as also for the treatment of her husband 
and thus the story that she was made to believe that she 
would be rendered financial assistance by some banks 
so as to enable her to meet the expenses for her c 
husband's treatment, is not correct. The said concurrent 
findings of the fact ordinarily are binding on the High Court 
while exercising its jurisdiction u/s 100 of the Code. [para 
11-13] [829-G; 830-B-D] 
2.1Section16 of the Contract Act, 1872 defines 'undue D 
infl

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.