9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation in the execution of a deed of gift. 2. Validity of the deed of gift and whether it was void ab initio or merely voidable. 3. Applicability of the statute of limitations to the suit. 4. Bona fides of the subsequent purchasers from the original donee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation in the execution of a deed of gift: The plaintiff, Titai Singh, alleged that he was fraudulently induced by defendant 1 to execute a deed of gift under the impression that it was a lease. The Subordinate Judge initially found no direct evidence of fraud but inferred it from circumstances such as Titai Singh's old age and illiteracy, the false recital in the deed, and the absence of the stamp-vendor's testimony. However, the High Court found that the inference of fraud must be based on cogent and convincing evidence, which was lacking in this case. The court emphasized that fraud must exclude every reasonable possibility other than that of fraud, which was not established here. 2. Validity of the deed of gift and whether it was void ab initio or merely voidable: The High Court held that if Titai Singh executed the document under the impression that it was a lease, there was no real execution since his mind was directed to one thing while he put his hand to something entirely different. This made the deed void ab initio, not merely voidable. The court cited Sarat Chandra v. Kanai Lall, which held that a document executed under such misrepresentation is void ab initio and does not require setting aside or cancellation. 3. Applicability of the statute of limitations to the suit: The High Court noted that if the deed was void ab initio, the three years' limitation provided by Articles 95 and 91 of the Limitation Act did not apply. The principle laid down in Foster v. Mackinnon, which distinguished between void and voidable instruments, was applicable here. Since the deed was void ab initio, the suit was not barred by limitation. 4. Bona fides of the subsequent purchasers from the original donee: The High Court concluded that if the deed was void ab initio, any subsequent transactions based on it were also void. Therefore, the bona fides of the subsequent purchasers (defendants 2 to 5) were irrelevant, as they could acquire no title from a void document. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeal, dismissing the suit on the ground that there was no evidence of fraud that could legally support the finding of the lower Appellate Court. The court reiterated that the deed was void ab initio due to the misrepresentation of its nature, rendering any subsequent transactions based on it null and void. The parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout.
|
