1968 (1) TMI 51 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the gift deed (Ex. 45) executed by the appellant.
2. Allegation of fraud and undue influence in the execution of the gift deed.
3. Applicability of the Limitation Act concerning the suit for setting aside the gift deed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Gift Deed (Ex. 45):

The appellant sought a decree for possession of properties, claiming ownership despite the gift deed executed on January 16, 1938. The properties in question included plots 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village and plots 407/1 and 409/1 of Tadavalga village. The appellant contended that the gift deed was executed under undue influence and fraud by her husband, Shiddappa, who dominated her will. The trial court found that the gift deed was obtained by undue influence and fraud but dismissed the suit for plots 407/1 and 409/1 due to the limitation period. The High Court dismissed the suit entirely, holding that the fraud was not established for plots 91 and 92 and that the suit was barred by limitation for plots 407/1 and 409/1.

2. Allegation of Fraud and Undue Influence:

The appellant argued that her husband fraudulently included plots 91 and 92 in the gift deed without her knowledge. The trial court supported this claim, noting the appellant's illiteracy, ignorance, and her husband's dominant position. The gift deed was grossly undervalued, and there was no reason for the appellant to transfer valuable lands inherited from her father to her husband. The High Court's reliance on the attesting witness Bhimarao's testimony was questioned, as he was not a disinterested witness. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court, concluding that the appellant never intended to convey plots 91 and 92 and that they were included in the gift deed by fraud.

3. Applicability of the Limitation Act:

a. Plots 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli Village:

The respondents argued that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 95 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year period from when the fraud becomes known. The appellant claimed she only discovered the fraud after her husband's death in 1949. The trial court found this claim credible, as the appellant lived amicably with her husband until his death and had no reason to suspect fraud. The Supreme Court held that the suit was filed within the prescribed time under Article 95, as the appellant acted promptly upon discovering the fraud.

b. Plots 407/1 and 409/1 of Tadavalga Village:

The trial court found that the appellant's husband dominated her will and obtained the gift deed through undue influence. However, the suit was dismissed under Article 91 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year period from when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument canceled are known. The appellant knew about the undue influence at the time of the gift deed's execution. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, stating that the limitation period began when the appellant discovered the true nature of the deed, not when she escaped her husband's influence.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granting the appellant a decree that the gift deed (Ex. 45) was not binding concerning plots 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village. The appellant was entitled to recover possession of these plots with mesne profits. The decree of the High Court was set aside, and the decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bijapur, was restored. The suit concerning plots 407/1 and 409/1 of Tadavalga village remained barred by limitation. The appeal was allowed with costs.