RAJA RAM versus JAI PRAKASH SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 112 · Decided: 11-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
 [2019] 12 S.C.R. 112
112
RAJA RAM
v.
JAI PRAKASH SINGH AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2896 of 2009)
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019
[NAVIN SINHA AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Contract Act, 1872: s. 16 – Undue influence – Inference of –
Execution of sale deed by father in favour of his son-respondent –
Allegation by appellant-son that respondent no. 1 exercised undue
influence over the father in having the sale deed executed in favour
of respondent because of physical infirmity of the father on account
of his old age and that the father was living with the respondents –
Held: To infer undue influence merely because a sibling was looking
after the family elder, is an extreme proposition which cannot be
countenanced in absence of sufficient and adequate evidence –
On facts, pleadings in the plaint are completely bereft of any details
or circumstances with regard to undue influence exercised by
respondents over the deceased – Mere bald statement is attributed
to the infirmity of the deceased father – Deceased was not completely
physically and mentally incapacitated – Respondents were in a
fiduciary relationship with the deceased – Their conduct in looking
after the parents in old age may have influenced their thinking –
But that per se cannot lead to the conclusion that the original
respondents were thus, in a position to dominate the will of the
deceased or that the sale deed executed was unconscionable – Onus
would shift upon the original respondents u/s. 16 r/w s. 111 of the
Evidence Act, only after plaintiff would have established a prima
facie case – Sale deed being a registered instrument, there shall be
a presumption in favour of the respondents – Onus for rebuttal lay
on the appellant which he failed to discharge – First appellate court
erred in appreciating the facts and evidence in the case – Cases
cannot be decided on assumptions or presumptions – Thus, the order
of the High Court setting aside the order of the first appellate court
which had set aside the order dismissing the appellant’s suit does
not call for interference – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 111.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
113
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The deceased undisputedly was over 80 years
and above in age. The plaintiff pleaded that by reason of age and
sickness, the deceased was unable to move and walk, with
deteriorated eye sight due to cataract. The mental capacity of
the deceased was impaired. The impairment in relation to a human
being is defined as total or partial loss of a body function, total or
partial loss of a part of the body, malfunction of a part of the body
and malfunction or disfigurement of a part of the body. Except for
a bald statement in the plaint that the deceased was mentally
impaired there is no evidence whatsoever of his mental status.
There can be no presumption with regard to the same only
because of old age to equate it with complete loss of mental
faculties by senility or dementia. Ageing is a process which affects
individuals differently at distinguishable ages. The sale deed
executed by the deceased in favour of two people, two years
earlier in 1968 has not been assailed by the appellant on the
ground that the deceased was devoid of the power of reasoning,
because of mental impairment. There is no evidence of any such
rapid deterioration in the condition of the deceased in these two
years. [Para 9][119-A-D]
Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Third
Edn Reprint, 2009 – referred to.
1.2 The deceased on account of his advanced age may have
been old and infirm with a deteriorating eye sight, and unable to
move freely. There is no credible evidence that he was bed ridden.
Hardness of hearing by old age cannot be equated with deafness.
The plaintiff, despite being the son of the deceased, except for
bald statement in the plaint, has not led any evidence in support
of his averments. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased
appeared before the sub-registrar for registration. It demolishes
the entire case of the plaintiff that the deceased was bed ridden.
He had put his thumb impression in presence of the sub–registrar
after the sale deed had been read over and explained to him. The
deceased had acknowledged receipt of the entire consideration
in presence of the sub-registrar only after which the deed was
executed and registered. The wife of the deceased had
RAJA RAM v. JAI PRAKASH SINGH AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
accompanie

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