- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lalla Singh v. Ajudhi
Factual and Procedural Background
This second appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 27-10-1984 by the Civil Judge, Jalaun at Orai, which accepted the plaintiff's appeal and decreed the suit. The suit concerned the execution of a sale-deed of land by a blind, old, illiterate man (the plaintiff-respondent) in favor of a potter (the defendant-appellant), allegedly obtained by fraud. The plaintiff was persuaded to sign the document under the belief that it was related to obtaining financial aid after his house was damaged by rain. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the consideration had passed and no fraud was established. The appellate court reversed this decision on grounds including the vendor's blindness, lack of compelling necessity to transfer the land, and credibility of witnesses. The present appeal challenges the appellate court's reversal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the lower appellate court committed an illegality in disregarding the presumption of genuineness of the registered sale deed based solely on conjecture and surmises?
- Whether the lower appellate court was justified in not considering the requirements of Section 17 of the Contract Act when recording a finding of fraud?
- Whether a suit for cancellation of a sale deed without consequential relief of possession is maintainable?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The lower appellate court erred legally in reversing the trial court's judgment.
- The plaintiff-respondent, though blind, accompanied by his son, executed the sale deed with valid consideration paid (Rs. 20,000 before the Sub-Registrar and Rs. 10,000 in advance).
- There was no proof of fraud in the execution of the sale deed.
- The appellate court should not disturb the trial court's factual findings unless special features were ignored.
Respondent's Arguments
- The appellate court correctly reversed the trial court's finding by giving cogent reasons leading to an irresistible inference of fraud.
- The sale deed was obtained by inducing the blind plaintiff under false pretenses related to financial aid.
- Relied on authorities emphasizing that findings of fact are generally not interfered with in second appeals unless there is a substantial error.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| AIR 1963 SC 302 - V. Ramchandra Ayyar and another v. Ramalingam Chettiar and another | Limits of interference in second appeals: High Court may interfere if decision is contrary to law, fails to determine material issue, or is perverse; generally does not interfere with findings of fact unless no evidence or no reasonable person could accept the view. | Used to justify the appellate court's interference with trial court's findings due to the presence of fraud and weakness of the vendor. |
| AIR 1932 Privy Council 89 - Satgur Prasad v. Har Narain Das | This precedent was cited by the respondent's counsel to support the principle that findings of fact in second appeals are ordinarily not disturbed. | Referenced to emphasize the standard of appellate interference on facts. |
| AIR 1963 SC 1279 - Ladli Prasad Jaiswal v. Kamal Distillery Company Ltd. and others | Principles governing appellate interference with factual findings in second appeals. | Relied upon to support the appellate court's approach in re-examining the facts under the circumstances. |
| AIR 1983 SC 114 - Das v. Smt. Narayani Bai and others | Duty of appellate court: interference only where lower court has taken a wrong approach or ignored salient evidence. | Considered but ultimately the court declined to apply this ratio to disturb the appellate court's judgment. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the facts in light of the Contract Act, particularly Sections 10, 11, 14, and 17, which define contracts, competence to contract, free consent, and fraud. It emphasized that a valid contract requires free consent, which must be a mental act, not merely a physical signing. Given the plaintiff's blindness, old age, illiteracy, and village background, the court found that he lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature and effect of the sale deed. The plaintiff was induced to sign the document under the false pretense of obtaining financial aid, which constituted fraud under Section 17 of the Contract Act.
The court rejected the presumption of genuineness attached to the registered document under Section 59(2) of the Indian Registration Act, holding that registration alone does not guarantee validity. The onus shifted to the appellant to prove genuineness, which was not discharged. The appellate court's reversal of the trial court's decision was found to be neither perverse nor unreasonable. The court also noted that the vendor had no independent advice and was in a vulnerable position, making the sale deed voidable.
The court distinguished the precedents cited by the appellant, affirming that interference in second appeals is justified where the lower appellate court's findings are supported by evidence and reasoned conclusions, especially where fraud is involved.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
The court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the appellate court's decision to set aside the sale deed on grounds of fraud and lack of free consent by the blind, vulnerable vendor. The direct effect is that the sale deed is invalidated, protecting the interests of the plaintiff-respondent. No new precedent was established; the decision reinforces existing principles regarding capacity, free consent, and fraud in contracts.
R.K. Mahajan, J.-
This is a second appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 27-10-1984 passed by Shri R. N. Rai, Civil Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1981 as a result of which he accepted the appeal decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. It is a case of execution of sale-deed of land by blind man in favour of a potter by fraud. It is said that the potter was having good relations with blind man. It is a case of an old, illiterate man living in a village back ground. He is leaving four sons and other members of family. He is living separately from them. So question is that whether the sale-deed executed was his mental actor he was induced to sign the document under the belief that financial help would be given and for that he was to go to Tehsil Head Quarter for filing the application to obtain that aid in view of his house having been fallen in the rainy season? The respondent believed and signed the document which ultimately turned to be the sale-deed. The decree was passed by trial Court regarding the validity of the sale-deed, hence the present Second Appeal.
3. Few facts are undisputed while deciding the controversy of this appeal. The respondent Ajudhi executed sale-deed of 3.27 acres of land in favour of the defendant-appellant for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/. The land was situated in Mauja Maktora, Pargana Jalaun. It is alleged by the appellant that he paid Rs. 20.000/-before the sub Registrar and Rs. 10,000/-in advance. The plaintiff-respondents thereafter filed a suit alleging that the defendant-appellant persuaded him that he should accompany him to the office of Tehsildar Jalaun since plaintiff's house had fallen in the rainy season and financial help would be procured for him. It may be mentioned that the defendant-appellant is a potter and plaintiff respondent has four sons living separately. The allegation of plaintiff-respondent is that acting under the persuasion of the defendant-appellant he went to the Tehsil and executed the document under the trap.
He denied that he has executed any sale-deed with an intention to convey and transfer the land and when he came to know he filed the suit on the plea of fraud. The defendant-appellant contested the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the consideration has passed and there was no fraud.
4. The appellate court reversed the decree on the three grounds. Firstly, that these was no compelling necessity to transfer the land. Secondly, the respondent-Vendor (plaintiff) was blind and was living separately. Thirdly, the sub-Registrar stated that he was blind whereas the witnesses of defendant-appellant stated that he was not blind. The appellate court did not believe the evidence of the defendant-appellant. This is now the present second appeal has been filed and at the time of admission of the present second appeal the following substantial questions of law numbered as 2, 3 and 5 were allowed to be framed:
"2. Whether the lower appellate court has committed an illegality in brushing aside the presumption of genuineness of the sale deed as it was a registered document, only on conjecture and surmises?
3. Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in not taking into consideration the ingredients of Section 17 of the Contract Act while recording a finding on fraud ?
5. Whether suit for cancellation of sale deed without consequential relief of possession was not maintainable ?"
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri V K. S. Chaudhary Senior Advocate appeared for the appellants and Dr. V. S. Dwivedi put in appearance for the respondents.
6. Shri V. K. S. Chaudhary raised the following submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the lower appellate court fell into a legal error in reversing the judgment and it was wrong approach in law. He further submitted that there is a finding that plaintiff-respondent went to the office of Sub-Registrar and he was accompanied by his son and Rs. 20,000/-was given before the Sub-Registrar and Rs. 10,000/-was given earlier and there is no proof of fraud at all. He further submitted that the plaintiff was a blind man and he was incapable of executing sale-deed. He has argued the matter while taking me through evidence and judgments of lower court and some paras of the evidence regarding the procuring Rs. 10,000/- etc. He further submitted that the appellate court should not have disturbed the finding of the lower court on facts unless some special features were ignored by the lower court in arriving at a conclusion.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the lower appellate court while reversing the finding that the sale-deed was not as a result of fraud and have given the cogent reasons leading irresistable inference for the commission of the fraud and the appellate court was justified in First appeal for disturbing the findings of the lower court. He has relied upon the following authorities. They states that finding of fact is not to be interfered ordinarily in Second appeal:
1. AIR 1963 SC 302 V. Ramchandra Ayyar and another v. Ramalingam Chettiar and another.
2. AIR 1932 Privy Council 89 Satgur Prasad v. Har Narain Das.
3. AIR 1963 SC 1279 Ladli Prasad Jaiswal v. Kamal Distillery Company Ltd. and others.
8. After giving careful thought I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant on the following lines of reasonings.
9. I would like to advert the definition of Section 10 of the Contract Act, 1872 that all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared as void.
10. Free consent is defined in Section 14 of the Contract Act. Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by coercion as defined in Section 15 or undue influence as defined in Section 16 or fraud as defined in Section 17.
11. Section 17 relates with respect to fraud.
Fraud means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party under him or his agent or to induce him to enter into the contract:
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
(2) any other act fitted to deceive;
12. Section 11 of the Contract Act is quoted with advantage:
"11. Who are competent to contract. A person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind, and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject."
13. In this case admittedly according to the endorsement of the Sub Registrar on the sale deed the Vendor (plaintiff-respondent) is a blind man i.e. Nabeena (who is deprived of sight).
14. In my view the person who is deprived to sight and is an old man, illiterate and hailing from village back ground is of weak faculty and unless the court is fully convinced that the document by virtue of which he wanted to transfer the land and whether he understood the effect of that document ? Whether also understood that he was doing is right or wrong after considering the necessity and other attending circumstance to sell if the court comes to the conclusion that the sale was executed validly and it was a mental act and in that eventuality the finding is to be given in affirmative ? Further it is made clear from he evidence that he was told that the loan would be acquired and in that belief he signed the papers and did not know the complication of executing of the document. It has been pointed out during the course of argument that who procured the revenue papers.
15. In my view merely the document is registered under Section 59(2) of Indian Registration Act does not mean that it is a genuine and valid. The onus of proving genuineness or validity in the facts and circumstances of the case shifts to appellant. For execution of valid document it should not be physical act but it should be also a mental act and in this case mental act is lacking.
16. I am of the view that the old blind man did not have an independent advise to execute the document and since they were having good relations and he under stray and the conclusion of the appellate court are not perverse and unreasonable in reversing the decision of the lower court.
17. According to the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent AIR 1963 SC 302 V. Ramachandra Ayyar and another v. Ramalinagam Chettiar and another in which it was observed that in hearing Second appeal, if the High Court is satisfied that the decision is contrary to law or some usage having the force of law, or that the decision has failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having the force of law, or if there is a substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by the Code, or by any other law for the time being in force which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon the merits, it can interfere with the conclusion of the lower appellate court. But the High Court cannot interfere with the conclusions of the fact recorded by the lower appellate court.
18. However, in para No. 13 of the Judgment (Supra) it is observed that the High Court is not barred to interfere if it is a case of no evidence or no reasonable person could have accepted the view taken by the lower appellate court.
19. Shri Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon AIR 1983 SC 114 in Das v. Smt. Narayani Bai and others. There is no dispute in the proposition of law laid down regarding the duty of the appellate court but if only finding can be interfered if the lower court has taken a wrong approach for the appreciation of law or has not considered the salient features of the evidence which were relevant.
20. I am afraid to subscribe with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and the ratio of the judgments cited do not apply.
21. So to conclude I am of the view that it is a fit case that the blind person has been given relief by the appellate court and who was in disadvantageous position and no circumstances have been shown that there was any need at the fag end of life to part with his land. So there is no infirmity in the judgment of the appellate court and as such it is not disturbed and the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Alert