LexRAMATHAL AND ORS. versus K. RAJAMANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CASE DETAILS RAMATHAL AND ORS. v. K. RAJAMANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 8830 of 2012) AUGUST 17, 2023 [VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The view of the High Court that before the Trial Court, there was neither any pleading nor any issue was framed with regard to the plea of non est factum and as such the First Appellate Court committed an error in determining the said plea in favour of the plaintiff s – Consequently, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Suit – Plaintiff instituted suit for declaration as the absolute owners of the suit properties and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction on the ground that there was misrepresentation in the General Power of Attorney – Dismissed by trial Court – First Appellate Court decided in favour of plaintiff s – The High Court proceeded to record a fi nding that there was neither any pleading nor any issue framed regarding the plea of non est factum and set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court – Appeal preferred by plaintiff s before the Supreme Court: Held: It is specifi cally averred in the plaint that only intention for executing the Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.2 was for developing the property in question into smaller plots and to get necessary approvals for the same from the relevant authorities – It is clearly stated in plaint that the plaintiff s were illiterate and had no means to get the above exercise carried out and as the defendant No.2 was well versed in dealing with Government Authorities, he could have helped them in developing the plots – Suit was instituted when plaintiff realized that the defendant had two additional clauses incorporated authorizing him to sell, gift, settle the plots in question and also to execute wherever necessary transfer of Patta [2023] 11 S.C.R. 348 : 2023 INSC 737 348 349 Deeds – Plaintiff never intended the same – Issues framed by the trial Court (i) whether the plaintiff s are absolute owner of the suit property and (ii) whether the plaintiff s are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property would cover issue of non est factum – From a perusal of the plaint, it is more than clear that the plea of non est factum was well pleaded, in clear and strict terms – The First Appellate Court had appreciated and analyzed the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, to record a fi nding that plea of non est factum was proved – Judgment of the High Court set aside and that of the First Appellate Court maintained. [Paras 16, 25, 26 to 29] Maxim – Non est factum – When plea can be taken: Held: A plea of non est factum can be taken by an executor or signatory of the deed to plead that the said document is invalid as its executor/signatory was mistaken about its character at the time of executing/signing it – It is a latin maxim which literally means “it is not the deed” – A plea of non est factum is a defence available in Contract Law allowing a person to escape the eff ect of a document which she/he may have executed/signed. [Para 17] Maxim – Non est factum – For successful plea of non-est factum requires: Held: (i) The person pleading non est factum must belong to “class of persons, who through no fault of their own, are unable to have any understanding of the purpose of the particular document because of blindness, illiteracy or some other disability” – The disability must be one requiring the reliance on others for advice as to what they are signing; (ii) “The signatory must have made a fundamental mistake as to the nature of the contents of the document being signed”, including its practical eff ects; (iii) The document must have been radically diff erent from one intended to be signed. [Para 19] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Smt. Bismillah vs. Janeshwar Prasad and Others (1990) 1 SCC 207; Bhagwati Prasad vs. Chandramaul AIR 1966 SC 735: [1966] SCR 286; Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Another (2008) 17 SCC 491 – relied on. Sri Sinna Ramunuja Jeer and Others vs. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer and Another (1962) 2 SCR 509; Randhir Kaur vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and Others RAMATHAL AND ORS. v. K. RAJAMANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. 350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 11 S.C.R. (2019) 17 SCC 71; Prem Singh & Ors. vs. Birbal & Ors. 2006 (5) SCC 353 : [2006] 1 Suppl. SCR 692; Pentakota Satyanarayana vs. Pentakota Seetharatnam 2005 (8) SCC 67 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 719; ITC Limited vs. State
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.