Joseph John Peter Sandy v. Veronica Thomas Rajkumar, (2013) 3 SCC 801
Contract and Specific Relief
Specific Relief Act, 1963
S. 26 - Provision under, as to rectification of an instrument - Applicability of - Person who can seek rectification - Held,
S. 26 is attracted in limited cases - It is applicable only where it is pleaded and proved that through fraud or mutual
mistake of the parties, the real intention of the parties is not expressed in instrument - Such rectification is permissible
only by parties to instrument and none else - In present case, father of the parties executing two registered settlement
deeds dt. 27-8-1981 by way of which he transferring House No. 22 to his son J (appellant) and House No. 23 to his
daughter V (R-1) - J alleging that their father subsequently realised that House No. 23 ought to have been given to him
and House No. 22 to V and, therefore, allegedly to give effect to the said real intention of father, J and V executed an
agreement dt. 1-6-1982 to exchange the said houses with each other - Since agreement dt. 1-6-1982 was not given
effect to by V, suit filed by J for issuance of direction to V to execute a deed of rectification - No witnesses to abovesaid
settlement deeds dt. 27-8-1981 examined to ascertain if any changed intention had been expressed by their father in
relation to said properties before them - Father not examined too, though he was alive for about three-and-a-half months
after filing of the suit - Subsequent letter by father indicating that he gave House No. 23 to V and, thus, he never intended
otherwise - Further, a subsequent rectification deed (Ext. A-6) purporting to transfer House No. 23 to J, being
unregistered, held, could not affect transfers made vide the registered settlement deeds dt. 27-8-1981 - Thus, held, S. 26
not attracted in present case - Lastly, it was only the father who could have sought rectification of deed - Mere
rectification by J and V would not bring the case within the ambit of S. 26, (2013) 3 SCC 801-A
Contract and Specific Relief
Specific Relief Act, 1963
S. 26 - Gift deed - Rectification of - Person who may seek - Held, only donor may seek rectification of gift deed, (2013)
3 SCC 801-B
Contract and Specific Relief
Formation defects -- Void and Voidable Contracts
Undue influence - Whether agreement in question was obtained by - Determination of - Fact that person who was
unduly influenced was educated and a teacher - Relevance - Real test, held, is whether will of person concerned could
be dominated/was in fact dominated by person alleged to have exercised undue influence - In present case, father
executing two registered settlement deeds by way of which he giving House No. 22 to his son J and House No. 23 to his
daughter V - J alleging that father subsequently realised that House No. 23 ought to have been given to him and House
No. 22 to V and, therefore, to give effect to the said real intention of father, J and V executed an agreement dt. 1-6-1982
to exchange the said houses with each other - On the date of execution of alleged agreement dt. 1-6-1982, V was
unmarried and was dependent on her father and brother J in respect of her marriage and sustenance - J was in a
position to dominate the will of V - Whole agreement was clouded with suspicion and unexplained circumstances -
Considering the areas of House Nos. 22 and 23 i.e. 730 sq ft and 2413 sq ft respectively, agreement dt. 1-6-1982 could
definitely be held to be unconscionable - Hence, conclusion of High Court that said agreement was obtained by undue
influence, held, was proper,
Or. 6 R. 4 - Plea of undue influence - Omission to make specific allegation as to undue influence by plaintiff - Effect of -
Not fatal to plaintiff if facts on record justify inference of undue influence - In such a case, all that court has to see is that
there is no surprise or prejudice caused to defendant, (2013) 3 SCC 801-D
Deeds and Documents
Generally
Giving effect to a document against a person not party to it - Permissibility - Held, High Court rightly concluded that as V
was not a party to document in question (unregistered rectification deed relied on by plaintiff to seek relief against V), it
had no effect, whatsoever in law, on the present case,
Evidence Act, 1872
Ss. 61 to 65, 67 and 73 - Admissibility of a document and proof of contents thereof - Distinguished - Held, even though
a document may be admissible, still its contents have to be proved - Hence, view taken by High Court in impugned
judgment that Ext. A-3 being an unregistered document (as it sought to affect transfers of immovable property effected
by prior registered documents) could not have been relied upon and it had wrongly been admitted, may not be legally
correct - But, since the appellant-plaintiff neither examined the attesting witnesses of the document Ext. A-3, nor proved
the contents thereof, held, no fault can be found with impugned judgment,
Evidence Act, 1872
Ss. 101 to 103 - Burden of proof - Document (unregistered rectification agreement) of which plaintiff seeking execution
against his sister i.e. defendant - Denied by defendant on ground of it being obtained by undue influence - Initial burden
of proof as to said document - Held, was on plaintiff - Only after discharge thereof, could it have been shifted to
defendant,
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
S. 118 - Nature of document concerned - Determination of - Whether agreement to exchange or rectification deed,
Print Page
Contract and Specific Relief
Specific Relief Act, 1963
S. 26 - Provision under, as to rectification of an instrument - Applicability of - Person who can seek rectification - Held,
S. 26 is attracted in limited cases - It is applicable only where it is pleaded and proved that through fraud or mutual
mistake of the parties, the real intention of the parties is not expressed in instrument - Such rectification is permissible
only by parties to instrument and none else - In present case, father of the parties executing two registered settlement
deeds dt. 27-8-1981 by way of which he transferring House No. 22 to his son J (appellant) and House No. 23 to his
daughter V (R-1) - J alleging that their father subsequently realised that House No. 23 ought to have been given to him
and House No. 22 to V and, therefore, allegedly to give effect to the said real intention of father, J and V executed an
agreement dt. 1-6-1982 to exchange the said houses with each other - Since agreement dt. 1-6-1982 was not given
effect to by V, suit filed by J for issuance of direction to V to execute a deed of rectification - No witnesses to abovesaid
settlement deeds dt. 27-8-1981 examined to ascertain if any changed intention had been expressed by their father in
relation to said properties before them - Father not examined too, though he was alive for about three-and-a-half months
after filing of the suit - Subsequent letter by father indicating that he gave House No. 23 to V and, thus, he never intended
otherwise - Further, a subsequent rectification deed (Ext. A-6) purporting to transfer House No. 23 to J, being
unregistered, held, could not affect transfers made vide the registered settlement deeds dt. 27-8-1981 - Thus, held, S. 26
not attracted in present case - Lastly, it was only the father who could have sought rectification of deed - Mere
rectification by J and V would not bring the case within the ambit of S. 26, (2013) 3 SCC 801-A
Contract and Specific Relief
Specific Relief Act, 1963
S. 26 - Gift deed - Rectification of - Person who may seek - Held, only donor may seek rectification of gift deed, (2013)
3 SCC 801-B
Contract and Specific Relief
Formation defects -- Void and Voidable Contracts
Undue influence - Whether agreement in question was obtained by - Determination of - Fact that person who was
unduly influenced was educated and a teacher - Relevance - Real test, held, is whether will of person concerned could
be dominated/was in fact dominated by person alleged to have exercised undue influence - In present case, father
executing two registered settlement deeds by way of which he giving House No. 22 to his son J and House No. 23 to his
daughter V - J alleging that father subsequently realised that House No. 23 ought to have been given to him and House
No. 22 to V and, therefore, to give effect to the said real intention of father, J and V executed an agreement dt. 1-6-1982
to exchange the said houses with each other - On the date of execution of alleged agreement dt. 1-6-1982, V was
unmarried and was dependent on her father and brother J in respect of her marriage and sustenance - J was in a
position to dominate the will of V - Whole agreement was clouded with suspicion and unexplained circumstances -
Considering the areas of House Nos. 22 and 23 i.e. 730 sq ft and 2413 sq ft respectively, agreement dt. 1-6-1982 could
definitely be held to be unconscionable - Hence, conclusion of High Court that said agreement was obtained by undue
influence, held, was proper,
Or. 6 R. 4 - Plea of undue influence - Omission to make specific allegation as to undue influence by plaintiff - Effect of -
Not fatal to plaintiff if facts on record justify inference of undue influence - In such a case, all that court has to see is that
there is no surprise or prejudice caused to defendant, (2013) 3 SCC 801-D
Deeds and Documents
Generally
Giving effect to a document against a person not party to it - Permissibility - Held, High Court rightly concluded that as V
was not a party to document in question (unregistered rectification deed relied on by plaintiff to seek relief against V), it
had no effect, whatsoever in law, on the present case,
Evidence Act, 1872
Ss. 61 to 65, 67 and 73 - Admissibility of a document and proof of contents thereof - Distinguished - Held, even though
a document may be admissible, still its contents have to be proved - Hence, view taken by High Court in impugned
judgment that Ext. A-3 being an unregistered document (as it sought to affect transfers of immovable property effected
by prior registered documents) could not have been relied upon and it had wrongly been admitted, may not be legally
correct - But, since the appellant-plaintiff neither examined the attesting witnesses of the document Ext. A-3, nor proved
the contents thereof, held, no fault can be found with impugned judgment,
Evidence Act, 1872
Ss. 101 to 103 - Burden of proof - Document (unregistered rectification agreement) of which plaintiff seeking execution
against his sister i.e. defendant - Denied by defendant on ground of it being obtained by undue influence - Initial burden
of proof as to said document - Held, was on plaintiff - Only after discharge thereof, could it have been shifted to
defendant,
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
S. 118 - Nature of document concerned - Determination of - Whether agreement to exchange or rectification deed,
No comments:
Post a Comment