Who can seek rectification of gift deed?

Joseph John Peter Sandy v. Veronica Thomas Rajkumar, (2013) 3 SCC 801

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, (2013) 3 SCC 801-C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

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, (2013) 3 SCC 801-E

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, (2013) 3 SCC 801-F

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, (2013) 3 SCC 801-G

Property Law

Transfer of Property Act, 1882

S. 118 - Nature of document concerned - Determination of - Whether agreement to exchange or rectification deed,

Print Page