9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the suit for cancellation of a sale deed executed by an illiterate person is maintainable under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 2. Whether the transaction in question was void or voidable due to fraud. Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal in question arose from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court where the decrees of the lower courts were set aside, holding the suit barred under Section 49 of the Act. The plaintiff, an illiterate person, was deceived into executing a sale deed instead of a gift deed by the defendants. The High Court ruled the suit as void under Section 49 due to ongoing consolidation proceedings. The plaintiff contended that the suit was maintainable due to fraud. However, the respondent argued that the transaction was void, citing relevant case law. Issue 2: The Supreme Court analyzed the nature of the transaction to determine if it was void or voidable due to fraud. Citing Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh and Ningawwa v. Byrappa, the Court distinguished between void and voidable transactions. It emphasized that a transaction induced by fraudulent misrepresentation as to its character is void, not merely voidable. In the present case, the plaintiff was unaware of executing a sale deed, believing it to be a gift deed. The Court concluded that the transaction was void due to fraudulent misrepresentation of the document's character, making the suit not maintainable under the Act. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the plaintiff's remedy lies with the consolidation authorities. The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the transaction was void, and the suit was not maintainable under Section 49 of the Act.
|
