SMT. HANS RAJI versus YASODANAND

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 666 · Decided: 24-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
SMT. HANS RAJI 
v. 
YASODANAND 
NOVEMBER 24, 1995 
(B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article l36-lnte1ference--Concurrent findings 
of fact-Courts below concurrently held that no fraud or misrepresentation 
was perpetrated by the respondent-Whether can be inteif ered with. 
Constitution of India-Article 136-Inteiference-Mixed question of law 
and fact-Appellant contends that sale deed was signed under the impression 
that it was a will-Whether parties were ad idem-Contention supported 
neither by pleadings, nor by evidence put forward before courts below-Held, 
no inteif erence is required. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section SB-Examination of attesting wit-
nesse~When required-Sale deed attested by witnesse~Whether examina-
tion of witnesses is mandatory. 
· The appellant filed a suit against the respondent for cancellation of a 
E 
sale deed executed by her in favour of the respondent on the ground that the 
sale deed was got executed by exercising fraud and misrepresentation. The 
appellant claimed that she was an illiterate harijan widow and had been 
given employment in the Railway on compassionate ground on the death of 
her husband. The respondent was living in appellant's house and allegedly 
F 
got her signatures on blank documents in the guise of getting a will executed 
by the appellant in favour of her brother's son. However, the said document 
was used for executing a sale deed in favour of the respondent. 
The Trial Court, the appellate Court as well as the High Court 
rejected· the claim of the appellant. Before this Court, the appellant con-
G tended that-
(a) the appellant being an illeterate, harijan woman, her position is 
that of a 'pardanashin' lady and therefore, the sale deed, which was ob-
tained by fraud and misrepresentation should be cancelled. 
H 
(b) the witnesses attesting the sale deed had not been examined by 
666 
-
HANS RAH v. YOSADANAND [S.B. MATMUDAR, J.) 
667 
the respondent and therefore, requirement of Section 68 of the Evidence A 
Act was not fulfilled. 
(c) the appellant had not put her signature on the document for the 
purpose of executing sale deed and therefore the parties were not ad idem. 
This contention was allowed to be raised as additional ground by this 
Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1. All the Courts below have concurrently found that the 
appellant had on her own and without any fraud or misrepresentation on C 
the part of the respondent executed the Sale Deed in question. Said finding 
is based, on appreciation of evidence and is a pure finding of fact which 
is not required to be interfered with in this appeal. [670-E-F] 
.. 
2. So far as the contention that the plaintiff was an illiterate harijan 
woman and was a childless widow and hence was like a 'pardanashin' lady D 
goes, it has rightly been rejected by the High Court by observing that she 
was already serving in Railway and there was nothing on record to show 
that she was suffering from any ignorance or illiteracy or mental deficiency 
and she could not be compared to a 'pardanashin' lady. [671-E] 
3. So far as the applicability to the proviso to Section 68 is concerned, 
it must be noted that there was no occasion for the respondent to examine 
any attesting witness to the document in question as it was a Sale Deed 
which never required any attestation and even if some "marginal" witnesses 
had attested the document, the document did not attract Section 68 of the 
Evidence Act, 1872 which in term applies to the proof of execution of 
document required by law to be attested. [671-F-G] 
4. The question, namely, whether both the parties were ad idem or 
E 
F 
not and whether the appellant had put her signature on the document 
thinking that it is a will and not a Sale Deed, is a question which is linked G 
up with the intention of the executant for which there should be plt:ading 
and evidence. On this aspect neither any pleading nor any evidence is put 
forward by the appellant in courts below. On the contrary, no such argu-
ment has been can-·assed before the High Court or before the first appel-
late Court which was the final court of facts. Consequently on the facts as 
found on the record and in the light of the evidence as led by the parties H 
668 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
this cannot be effectively supported or made out. Even othenvise when it 
has been concurrently found by all Courts below on evidence on record 
tha

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