- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pethu Reddiar And Others v. Rajambu Ammal
Structured Summary of the Legal Opinion (Privy Council)
Factual and Procedural Background
The suit was instituted on 20 April 1932 by Somasundara Reddiar against approximately 18 defendants seeking to set aside a power of attorney dated 21 September 1931 and 14 sale deeds executed between 16 November 1931 and 5 March 1932. The plaintiff sued as a person alleged to be of unsound mind and as a pauper; his wife, Rajambu Ammal (married to him in 1927), acted as his next friend. The relief sought was cancellation of the impugned documents and delivery of possession of the properties conveyed.
The substantive grounds alleged in the plaint were (1) lack of capacity under S. 12 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and (2) that the transactions were induced by undue influence as defined in S. 16 of the same Act.
Somasundara died in 1936 and his widow (the present respondent) was substituted as plaintiff. On 25 February 1941 the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly dismissed the suit except as to three sale deeds (set aside on apparent grounds of lack of consideration), holding that the pleas of unsoundness and undue influence were not established and rejecting the medical testimony called for the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed, and on 28 April 1944 the Madras High Court (Krishnaswami Ayyangar and Somayya JJ.) allowed the appeal, holding that Somasundara lacked contractual capacity under S. 12 and that unscrupulous persons had taken advantage of his helpless state; the High Court set aside the power of attorney and 11 sale deeds, placed the plaintiff in possession and dealt with mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12, Civil P.C.
On 15 December 1944 the High Court granted leave to three of the defendants (the present appellants) to appeal to His Majesty in Council. All 15 impugned transactions were thereby set aside below; only four sale deeds (two in favour of the first-named appellant and one each in favour of the second- and third-named appellants) remained the subject of the present appeal to the Privy Council. The four challenged deeds and stated considerations were: (i) 16/11/1931 — Rs. 3,000 (Ex. XIV); (ii) 22/1/1932 — Rs. 100 (Ex. XIX); (iii) 18/1/1932 — Rs. 250 (Ex. XXIII); and (iv) 19/1/1932 — Rs. 4,000 (Ex. XX).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court had power under Section 110, Civil Procedure Code, to grant leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council where multiple appellants were involved and the value of the subject-matter in respect of each appellant, taken individually, was below Rs. 10,000 — i.e., whether the values of the properties in dispute on appeal could be aggregated for the purpose of Section 110.
- Whether Somasundara was of unsound mind within the meaning of Section 12, Indian Contract Act, 1872, at the dates of the impugned transactions (and, relatedly, whether the transactions were induced by undue influence within the meaning of Section 16).
- As a subsidiary issue, whether the first-named appellant (Pethu Reddiar) was entitled to recoupment/credit in respect of several amounts alleged to have formed part of the stated consideration in the sale deed dated 16 November 1931.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent (plaintiff / widow of Somasundara) — principal submissions
- On a preliminary point, submitted that the High Court had no power to grant leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council under Section 110, Civil P.C., because for Section 110 the amount or value in dispute on appeal must be Rs. 10,000 or upwards.
- Substantively, maintained the original case: that Somasundara was of unsound mind at relevant times (relying on lay witnesses and medical evidence) and that the transactions should be set aside on the grounds asserted in the plaint.
Appellants (defendants / purchasers) — principal submissions
- Contended that for the purposes of Section 110 the matter should be examined as to each appellant separately and that the value of the matter in dispute on appeal in respect of each appellant was less than Rs. 10,000, so leave to appeal should not have been granted.
- On the merits, maintained (through lay witnesses) that Somasundara was of sound mind and competent to contract; opposed the plaintiff's contention based on the medical witnesses.
- The first-named appellant (Pethu Reddiar) further claimed that several components of the stated consideration in the 16 November 1931 sale deed had been paid — including payments of decrees and sums said to have been advanced — and sought recoupment in the event the sale deed were set aside.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Reported in 33 AIR 1946 Mad 458 (High Court decision) | Supporting aggregation of values of the properties in dispute for the purposes of S. 110, Civil P.C., where the appeals depend on the same substantive issue. | The Privy Council approved the High Court's approach to aggregation and relied on the view that there was one "matter in dispute" on the facts, thereby rejecting the preliminary objection to leave. |
| Decision referred to as 42 Mad. 2281 | An earlier decision treated as opposing the aggregation principle relied on by the High Court (distinguished in the High Court's reasoning). | The Privy Council noted the High Court distinguished 42 Mad. 2281 and accepted the High Court's distinction, thereby declining to follow 42 Mad. 2281 on the facts before it. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Privy Council divided its reasoning into two main parts: the preliminary procedural question under Section 110, Civil P.C., and the merits (a question of fact as to Somasundara's mental capacity and related allegations of undue influence).
On Section 110 and aggregation: The Council examined whether the value threshold in S. 110 had to be met separately in relation to each appellant or could be satisfied by aggregating the values of the properties in dispute across appellants. The Council agreed with the High Court's conclusion that aggregation was permissible on the facts of this case because the respondent's case against each appellant and each appellant's case against the respondent depended on the same substantive issue—Somasundara's capacity. The Council emphasised that this was not a case of several appellants each litigating distinct or unrelated causes of action; rather, there was in substance a single "matter in dispute" turned on the same evidence. On that construction of the section the preliminary objection to leave failed and the High Court was right to certify and grant leave.
On the merits (fact question of sanity and undue influence): The Council treated the central question as one of fact to be resolved on the evidence already reviewed by the Indian courts. It observed the conflict between lay witnesses called for the respective sides: many lay witnesses for the defendants said Somasundara had been of sound mind; plaintiff's lay witnesses (including the plaintiff and her mother) supported his unsoundness. The Council gave particular weight to two medical witnesses called on behalf of the plaintiff: Dr. G. R. Parasuram (Deputy Superintendent, Government Mental Hospital, Madras) who examined Somasundara in February 1931 and again in July/August 1932 and found symptoms of dementia praecox and concluded unsoundness; and Dr. S. P. Sarma (District Medical Officer, Trichinopoly), who observed Somasundara from 15 to 28 July 1932 and found him of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs.
The Subordinate Judge had rejected the medical testimony as "perfectly worthless and completely biased," but the High Court accepted it. The Privy Council, after careful consideration of the record, found no justification for the Subordinate Judge's strictures and no evidence of bias or incompetence on the part of the medical witnesses. The Council also noted corroborative circumstances: a published notice dated 20 August 1930 by the plaintiff warning that money dealings with her husband would not be valid because of his lunacy, and the pattern of transactions which left Somasundara divested of his possessions. On the whole record the Privy Council concluded that the High Court's factual finding — that Somasundara was of unsound mind during the relevant period and the transactions should be set aside — was correct and should be affirmed.
On the subsidiary claim for recoupment by the first-named appellant: The Council examined the composition of the Rs. 3,000 stated consideration in the 16 November 1931 deed, which comprised five listed sums (Rs. 294-8-0; Rs. 195-14-0; Rs. 1,100; Rs. 1,160; Rs. 259-10-0). The appellant admitted that the first item had not been discharged; the High Court accepted payment of the Rs. 195-14-0 and Rs. 1,100 items but doubted the payment of the other items and whether the appellant had paid any decrees out of his own funds. The Privy Council concurred that the Rs. 195-14-0 and Rs. 1,100 payments should be regarded as having been made by the appellant for Somasundara's benefit out of his own pocket, but shared the High Court's doubts as to the other payments.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Privy Council advised His Majesty to dismiss the appeal and affirmed the decree of the High Court. The Council also ruled that the preliminary objection under Section 110, Civil P.C., was not sustainable on the facts and upheld the High Court's approach to aggregation of the values for leave to appeal. Finally, the Council allowed a limited recoupment to the first-named appellant.
Direct consequences and specified orders:
- Appeal dismissed. The High Court decree setting aside the power of attorney and the impugned sale deeds was affirmed.
- The appellants were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
- As to the first-named appellant, Pethu Reddiar, the Privy Council held that, upon complying with the orders affecting him in the suit, he was entitled to recoupment in the amount of Rs. 1,295-14-0 (Rs. 195-14-0 + Rs. 1,100) and to take credit for that amount in the ascertainment of mesne profits, provided he had so complied.
No additional broader implications or new doctrines beyond the decision on the facts and the sectional construction in this specific context are expressly stated in the opinion. The Court explicitly overruled the preliminary objection to aggregation on the facts before it and affirmed the factual finding of unsoundness of mind supporting the setting aside of the transactions.
Lord Macdermott.-
The litigation from which this appeal arises was commenced on 20 - 4 - 1932, by one Somasundara Reddiar against some 18 defendants for the purpose of setting aside a power - of - attorney and 14 sale deeds all of which had been executed by Somasundara, the plaintiff, in favour of one or other of the defendants. The power - of - attorney was dated 21 - 9 - 1931. The sale deeds were executed on various dates ranging from 16 - 11 - 1931 to 5 - 3 - 1932. Somasudara sued as a person of unsound mind and a pauper, by his wife and next friend Rajambu Ammal, the present respondent, whom he had married in 1927 when he was about 17 years old. The relief sought was that all the documents mentioned should be set aside and possession given of the properties the subject of the sale deeds. In their substance the grounds of this claim were (1) that Somasundara was not of sound mind within the meaning of S. 12, Contract Act, 1872, at the dates of the transactions in question, and (2) that those transactions had all been induced by undue influence, as defined in S. 16 of the said Act, on the part of the defendants or some of them.
2 The suit thus started ran an involved and tedious course the details of which need not now be recounted at length. The following summary of the proceedings leading to the appeal to the Board will suffice for present purposes. In 1936 Somasundara died and his widow, the respondent, was substituted as plaintiff as her husband's legal representative. On 25 - 2 - 1941, the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly dismissed the suit save in respect of three of the said sale deeds which he set aside, apparently on the ground of lack of consideration. He held that the pleas of unsoundness of mind and undue influence had not been established. In reaching this conclusion he disregarded the testimony of two doctors produced as witnesses in support of the claim (and who had not been examined before him) as being "perfectly worthless and completely biased". The defendants whose sale deeds had been set aside did not appeal from this decision. But the plaintiff did and her appeal was allowed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 28 - 4 - 1944. The Court (Krishnaswami Ayyangar and Somayya JJ.) held that Somasundara had not the requisite capacity to contract as laid down in S. 12, Contract Act, and that his "helpless state and weak mind were taken advantage of by unscrupulous persons". It decreed accordingly that the power - of - attorney and the 11 sale deeds which had been upheld by the Subordinate Judge be set aside, that the plaintiff be put into possession and that the question of mesne profits be determined under O. 20, R. 12, Civil PC. On 15 - 12 - 1944, the High Court granted leave to three of the defendants, the present appellants, to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The position, as the matter now comes before their Lordships, therefore, is that all the 15 transactions impugned in this suit have been set aside and of these only four-the sale deeds in which the appellants were concerned as transferees-are the subject of the present appeal. Particulars of these four are as follows :
TransfereeDateConsideration as stated Exhibit No.
1st named Appellant....16/11/31Rs. 3,000XIV
" "....22/1/32Rs. 100XIX
2nd " "....18/1/32Rs. 250XXIII
3rd " "....19/1/32Rs. 4,000XX
On the appeal coming on for hearing counsel for the respondent submitted, as a preliminary point, that the High Court had not power to grant leave to appeal having regard to the terms of S. 110, Civil P. C. The material part of this section reads thus:
"In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of S. 109, the amount or value of the subject - matter of the suit in the Court of first instance mast be Rs. 10,000 or upwards, and the amount or value of the matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council must be the same sum or upwards, or the decree or final order must involve, directly or indirectly, some claim or question to, or respecting, property of like amount or value."
It was not disputed that the value of the subject - matter of the suit in the Court of first instance was upwards of Rs. 10,000 or that the value of all the properties in dispute on appeal to the Board exceeded, in the aggregate, this sum. But it was urged that, for the purposes of S. 110, the case of each appellant must be regarded separately and that, when this was done, the value of each matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council was less than Rs. 10,000. It was assumed that the property alleged to have been transferred to each of the three appellants was below this figure in value at all material times and, accordingly, the next question for determination was whether or not the values of the properties comprised in the sale deeds, the subject of this appeal, could be aggregated for the purposes of the section. The High Court held, Reported in 33 AIR 1946 Mad 458 in favour of aggregation and certified on that basis, distinguishing the decision in 42 Mad. 2281 and other cases said to have followed it. In the opinion of their Lordships the High Court was clearly right in the view it took. This was not the case of an appeal involving several appellants each of whom sued or was sued in respect of some distinct or unrelated cause of action, and it is unnecessary to consider the applicability of S. 110 to appeals of that kind. Here, the case of the respondent against each appellant and of each appellant against the respondent depended, in its substance, on the view taken of the evidence as a whole and turned on the same issue regarding the capacity of Somasundara. On the facts of this appeal there was, indeed, but one "matter in dispute" unless the mere circumstance of a plurality of appellants decrees otherwise. On the true construction of the section their Lordships were unable to see any ground for such a refinement and they therefore overruled the preliminary objection.
[3] Turning to the merits, it is clear that the appeal hinges on a question of fact which must be determined on the evidence. As this has been fully reviewed in the Courts in India their Lordships do not find it necessary to enter upon a detailed examination of the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the parties. The lay witnesses called in support of the plaint made the case that Somasundara began to lose his reason some two years after his marriage. Among these witnesses were the plaintiff and her mother who, no doubt, had an interest in the suit. But it may be observed, in this connection, that their views as to Somasundara's sanity had been expressed a considerable time before the earliest of the transactions challenged in these proceedings for, on 20 - 8 - 1930, the plaintiff had caused a notice to be published in the District Gazette, Trichinopoly, warning all concerned that any money dealings with her husband would not be valid on account of his lunacy. The numerous witnesses called on behalf of the defendants were all lay and except for two (Nos. 23 and 24) who openly supported the plaintiff, they together made the case that Somasundara had always been a person of sound mind. In this conflict of testimony, the importance of the two medical witnesses examined for the plaintiff need not be emphasised. Of these, Dr. G. R. Parasuram was Deputy Superintendent of the Government Mental Hospital at Madras. He had examined Somasuudara in February 1931, and again at the end of July and beginning of August 1932. He found symptoms of dementia praecox and formed the conclusion on both occasions that Somasundara was not sane. On the second examination he observed a deterioration in appearance but found his mental condition much as before. The second medical witness was Dr S. P. Sarma, the District Medical Officer of Trichinopoly. He had Somasundara under observation from 15th till 28 - 7 1932, and found him of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs. The attitude of the Subordinate Judge to the testimony of these witnesses has already been remarked. The High Court found itself unable to adopt that attitude. It saw no reason to discredit either of the medical witnesses and it is plain that their testimony played an important part in leading the High Court to reverse the decision of the Subordinate Judge.
[4] After a careful consideration of the evidence their Lordships are satisfied, beyond any question, that the view taken by the High Court was the right view and should be affirmed. They can see no reason to justify the strictures passed upon the medical testimony by the Subordinate Judge. The evidence of these witnesses seems to have been based on a conscientious examination of the patient. Their competence was not in any way challenged and there is nothing in the case to suggest that either had any interest in the suit or bias in favour of the plaintiff. The strange sequence of transactions which were the subject of the present and another contemporaneous suit and which left Somasundara stripped of his possessions, and thus qualified to sue as a pauper, offers strong corroboration of the medical testimony and of the substance of the story told by the plaintiff. In their Lordships' opinion the whole weight of the evidence supports the finding that Somasundara was of unsound mind throughout the relevant period.
[5] There remains for consideration a subsidiary point raised on behalf of the first - named appellant, Pethu Reddiar. The consideration stated in the sale deed made in his favour and dated 16 - 11 - 1931 (ex. 14), was Rs. 3000. According to the document this amount was made up of five sums of Rs. 294 8 0, Rs. 195 - 14 - 0, Rs. 1100, Rs. 1160 and Rs. 259 - 10 - 0, respectively. Of these the first three were due by Somasundara on foot of decrees which this appellant was to discharge by payment, the fourth was said to be due to this appellant as surety for Somasundara on a promissory note, and the fifth was stated in the sale deed to be the amount of cash received by Somasundara. It was admitted that the first item had not been discharged, but this appellant claimed that he was entitled to recoupment in respect of the other sums in the event of his appeal failing and the sale deed being set aside. The High Court was satisfied that the decrees for Rs. 195 - 14 - 0 and Rs. 1000 had been paid but was not satisfied as to the payment of the other items or that this appellant had paid the decrees out of his own monies.
[6] As the evidence stands their Lordships are of opinion that the decree payments of Rs. 19514 - 0 and Rs. 1100 should be regarded as paid by this appellant, Pethu Reddiar, out of his own pocket for the benefit of Somasundara, but they share the doubts of the High Court as to the other payments alleged. In the circumstances of the present case their Lordships consider that Pethu Reddiar will, upon complying with the orders affecting him in the suit, be entitled to be recouped the said sums amounting to Rs. 1295 - 14 - 0 and no more, and that be should be at liberty to take credit for such amount in the ascertainment of mesne profits provided he has so complied.
[7] Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal be dismissed and the decree of the High Court affirmed without prejudice to the right of Pethu Reddiar, the first - named appellant, to recoupment of the sum of Rs. 1295 - 14 - 0 as aforesaid. The appellants must pay the costs of the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Alert