1975 (11) TMI 174 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Hiba-bil-Ewaz due to alleged fraud and misrepresentation.
2. Whether the Hiba-bil-Ewaz was executed under undue influence.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of the Hiba-bil-Ewaz due to alleged fraud and misrepresentation

The plaintiff, an illiterate and elderly villager, claimed that the Hiba-bil-Ewaz executed on February 9, 1959, was void due to fraud and misrepresentation by the donee, Afsar Sheikh. The trial court found no fraud or misrepresentation and dismissed the suit. The District Judge affirmed this decision. However, the High Court, in second appeal, remanded the case to determine if undue influence was exercised by Afsar. The Additional District Judge, upon remand, reaffirmed the trial court's findings, stating there was no undue influence or fraud.

Issue 2: Whether the Hiba-bil-Ewaz was executed under undue influence

The High Court, in second appeal, reversed the lower courts' judgments, suggesting that the intimate relationship between the parties indicated a "possibility" of undue influence. The Supreme Court found this approach erroneous, noting that undue influence was neither adequately pleaded nor put in issue. The Court emphasized that undue influence, fraud, and misrepresentation are distinct legal categories requiring specific pleadings as per Order 6, Rule 4, read with Order 6, r.2, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court's attempt to infer undue influence from the defendant's written statement was deemed incorrect.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the first appellate court had found no evidence of undue influence, and the High Court was not competent to reverse this factual finding in second appeal. The Court reiterated that the burden of proving undue influence lies with the party alleging it, and the plaintiff had failed to establish the necessary elements under s. 16 of the Indian Contract Act. The evidence showed that the plaintiff executed the Hiba-bil-Ewaz voluntarily and understood its contents.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the suit, concluding that the plaintiff failed to prove undue influence, and the High Court erred in its approach. The parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout.