1987 (1) TMI 496 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the document executed by Bysani Sundaramma.
2. Alleged undue influence and fraud in the execution of the document.
3. Proper valuation of the suit for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction.
4. Entitlement to the relief of declaration and injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Document Executed by Bysani Sundaramma:
The primary issue in this case was the validity of the document executed by Bysani Sundaramma on 15.11.1976. The plaintiff alleged that the document was "sham and nominal," fabricated, and not executed by Sundaramma due to her mental and physical incapacity. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding no vitiating circumstances, while the appellate court reversed this decision, highlighting the non-production of the document and the suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.

The High Court noted several suspicious circumstances, such as the shaky signatures of Sundaramma, the involvement of the second appellant in typing and procuring the stamp papers, and the execution of two special powers of attorney for the same purpose. The court concluded that these circumstances, coupled with the failure of the appellants to produce the document and their non-appearance as witnesses, cast significant doubt on the validity of the document.

2. Alleged Undue Influence and Fraud in the Execution of the Document:
The plaintiff contended that the document was obtained by undue influence and fraud, exploiting Sundaramma's sick condition. The trial court found no undue influence, but the appellate court inferred undue influence due to the suspicious circumstances and the non-production of the document.

The High Court emphasized that the defendants, who were in a position to provide crucial evidence regarding Sundaramma's state of health and the execution of the document, failed to do so. The court drew adverse inferences from the defendants' non-appearance and the lack of explanation for the execution of two special powers of attorney. The court held that the document was not proved to be executed by Sundaramma with full understanding and free will.

3. Proper Valuation of the Suit for the Purpose of Court-fees and Jurisdiction:
The trial court initially returned the plaint, requiring it to be valued under Section 40 of the Court-Fees Act. The plaintiff's counsel amended the prayer to declare the document as "sham and nominal" to avoid higher court fees. The High Court clarified that the case should be decided based on the averments in the body of the plaint, not merely the prayer. The court held that the change in the prayer did not affect the plaintiff's case, as the primary issue was the validity of the document.

4. Entitlement to the Relief of Declaration and Injunction as Prayed for by the Plaintiff:
The plaintiff sought a declaration that the document was sham and nominal and an injunction to restrain the defendants from registering or acting upon it. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court granted the relief, finding the document vitiated by undue influence.

The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, albeit for different reasons. The court found that the document was not proved to be executed by Sundaramma with full understanding and free will. Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought, and the second appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the appellate court's decision to grant the plaintiff's relief. The court emphasized the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the document, the defendants' failure to provide crucial evidence, and the adverse inferences drawn from their non-appearance. The plaintiff's case was upheld, and the document was declared invalid.