LexJOSEPH JOHN PETER SANDY versus VERONICA THOMAS RAJKUMAR & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2013] 2 S.C.R. 368 JOSEPH JOHN PETER SANDY v. VERONICA THOMAS RAJKUMAR & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2178-2179 of 2004 etc.) MARCH 12, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963: s.26 - Suit for rectification of settlement deeds - Held: Appellant could not have filed the suit for rectification of settlement deed, as there was no mistake in its understanding or execution by the parties - It was only the father of the 0 parties who could have sought rectification of the deed, but he was neither impleaded, nor examined before the trial court, though he was still alive at the time of institution of the suit - As respondent no. 1 was not a party to the alleged rectification deed, she was not bound by it - Besides, the memorandum E of agreement relied upon by the plaintiff has not been proved - Evidence - Onus of proof. CONTRACT ACT, 1872: s. 16 - Contract induced by undue influence - Held: High F Court has come to the conclusion that it was a case of undue influence, as on the date of executing the alleged document, i.e. Memorandum of agreement, respondent no. 1 was unmalTied and was dependent on her father and brother for settling her marriage and for sustenance - She having G contended that plaintiff was in a position to dominate her will, the alleged document was termed as an unconscionable - The said document was clouded with suspicious and unexplained circumstances. H 368 JOSEPH JOHN PETER SANDY v. VERONICA 369 THOMAS RAJKUMAR The father of the appellant and respondent no. 1 A executed two registered settlement deeds on 27.8.1981 transferring House No. 23 in the name of his daughter (respondent No. 1) and House No. 22 in the name of his son (the appellant). The appellant filed O.S.No. 6331 of 1983 on 12.9.1983 for issuance of direction to defendant/ B respondent no.1, to execute a Deed of Rectification and further to restrain her from interference with the appellant's possession of the suit property. It was the case of the plaintiff-appellant that after the settlement deed dated 27.8.1981, the father of the parties realised c that House No. 23 which was given to the daughter, ought to have been given to him and House No. 22 to the daughter. Thus, the parties to give effect to the real intention of their father decided to exchange the properties given to them, and in furtherance thereof, 0 executed an Agreement Deed to exchange the same on 1.6.1982 (Ext. A-3), but respondent no. 1 failed to give effect to the same. During the pendency of the suit, the settler and the appellant were stated to have executed a Rectification Deed (Ext.A-6) on 8.10.1983 by which the E property in Door No.23 was given to the appellant. The said deed was signed by two witnesses. Respondent no.1/defendant filed suit O.S. No. 415 of 1984 for declaration that the agreement dated 1.6.1982 (Ext.A-3), an unregistered document, was null and void, being a forged document, and that she, under undue influence, F put her signature on the blank non-judicial stamp papers. The trial court decreed the appellant's suit and dismissed that of respondent no.1. However, the High Court allowed both the appeals filed by respondent no.1. Dismissing the appeals, the Court, HELD: 1-.1. Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has a limited application, and is applicable only where it G is pleaded and proved that through fraud or mutual H 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R. A mistake of the parties, the real intention of the parties is not expressed in relation to an instrument. Such rectification is permissible only by the parties to the instrument and by none else. [para 7] [378-D-E] B Subhadra & Ors. v. Thankam, 2010 (8) SCR 299 =AIR 2010 SC 3031; State of Kamataka & Anr. v. K. K. Mohandas & etc, 2007 (8) SCR 697 =AIR 2007 SC 2917 - relied on. 1.2. In the instant case, as respondent no. 1 was not a party to the document Ext A-6, she was not bound by C it. Also, the appellant could not have filed the suit for rectification of settlement deed, as there was no mistake in the understanding or execution by the parties. It was only the father of the parties who could have sought . 0 rectification of the deed, but he was neither impleaded, nor examined before the trial court, though he was still alive at the time of institution of the suit. Even the appellant failed to examine the witnesses to the document Ext.A-3. [p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.