9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and had, because of relationship, allowed her son i.e. the petitioner to reside in a portion of the ground floor of the said house as a licensee; the respondent herself was also residing in the said house; that the petitioner had got married on 7th May, 2007 and thereafter the petitioner and his wife had started ill-treating the respondent; that in the circumstances, the respondent had terminated the license of the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to remove himself from the portion in his use/occupation but the petitioner had failed to do so. The respondent thus in the suit sought the relief of eviction and vacant possession of the portion of the house in occupation of the petitioner. 3. Summons of the suit were ordered to be issued to the petitioner. The parties along with their respective advocates appeared before the suit court and moved a joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC. The petitioner admitted the ownership of the respondent of the property and agreed to vacate and handover vacant peaceful physical possession of the premises to the respondent within six months. The compromise application also contains an undertaking of the petitioner to vacate and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be under one head and also to save property tax/house tax" and at the assurance that for other purposes the property will remain a joint family property and the petitioner will get his due share therein and shall have right to live and occupy the property on a permanent basis; that the petitioner also got married to a girl identified by the respondent mother; however the respondent mother created a wedge between the petitioner and his wife leading to the petitioner's wife filing an FIR under Section 498A IPC and a petition under the Domestic Violence Act; that the petitioner continued to remain under the thumb of his mother; that in order to disturb the married life of the petitioner by not allowing the petitioner's wife to settle in the house, the respondent filed the suit aforesaid for possession and making full use of her undue influence over the petitioner did not allow the petitioner to contest the suit and in exercise of undue influence, made the petitioner to make a statement compromising the suit and admitting passing of a decree against the petitioner. It was however averred that the petitioner was surprised when the Bailiff came to execute the decree; it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d facts are - a. That the petitioner nearly three years prior to the institution of the suit had vide registered relinquishment deed relinquished all his rights, title, interest and share in the property with respect whereto the suit was filed. b. That on the basis of the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent and her husband with respect to the aforesaid property and the relinquishment deed executed by the petitioner and his sister with respect to their shares out of 50% share of their father in the said property, the respondent was the sole and absolute owner of the property. The petitioner on the date of institution of the suit had no right to the property. His only plea is that the relinquishment deed was executed for the reasons as noted above. 12. The compromise between the parties has to be seen in the light of the aforesaid state of affairs. Another important factor relevant in this regard is that at the time when the suit aforesaid was filed by the respondent mother, the petitioner had disputes with his wife also. The wife of the petitioner had in or about 2006 i.e. prior to the institution of the suit aforesaid filed a complaint against the petitioner under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter execution of the compromise decree being filed, joined in exhibiting the site plan. The petitioner, though aware of the compromise decree did not raise any objections with respect thereto. 14. The senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon- a. M.A. Abdul Malick Saheb Vs. T.P. Muhammad Yousuf Sahib AIR 1961 Mad 190. In this case, the plaintiff was a lad of about 18 years of age at the time of his father's death; the brother of his mother i.e. maternal uncle was instrumental in bringing about an amicable division of assets of his father between the two widows and their respective children; within a few months of the said settlement which itself happened within a year of the father's demise, the plaintiff had executed gift deeds of the estate which had fallen to his share in favour of his mother and the mother had sold the properties so received from the son to a stranger to the family. It was in the said facts that reliance was placed on Allcard v. Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145 inter alia to the effect that where the court is satisfied that the gift was the result of influence expressly used by the donee for the purpose and where shortly before the execution of the gif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by a grandfather of a portion of his properties in favour of his only grandson a few years before his death was on the face of it not an unconscionable transaction; d. Ladli Prasad Jaiswal Vs. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. AIR 1963 SC 1279. In this case the suit was for declaration of certain resolutions of the directors of a company as void and illegal on the ground of undue influence having been exercised on some of the directors. It was held whether a particular transaction was vitiated on the ground of undue influence is primarily a decision of fact. It was further held that the object of Order 6 Rule 4 of the CPC is to bring parties to a trial by concentrating their attention on the matter in dispute so as to narrow the controversy to a precise issue and to give notice to the parties of the nature of testimony required on either side in support of their respective cases; a vague or general plea can never serve this purpose. The court in the facts of that case did not find a case of undue influence; e. Munna Kumari Vs. Umrao Devi AIR 2006 Raj 152. This judgment merely relies on Subhas Chandra Das Mushib (supra); f. Chidambaram Pillai Vs. Muthammal MANU/TN/0412/1992. The L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the compromise and passing a decree in terms of the compromise, is deemed /presumed to have satisfied itself that the compromise was not a result of undue influence. Thus the onus on a party applying for setting aside of a compromise decree on the ground of undue influence is much more than the onus on a party approaching the court with a suit for setting aside of a deed or other act as having been procured by undue influence. The agreement/compromise in the case of a compromise decree has the imprimatur of a court. The Supreme Court in Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang AIR 2006 SC 1883 has held that such compromise becomes an order of the court and where-against proceedings for contempt also lie. 17. My research shows that this court has in Uma Devi Yadav Vs. Lt. Col. Gaj Singh Yadav AIR 2000 Delhi 424 (DB) dismissed such an application without any trial on not finding any case of fraud or undue influence to have been made out. I must, however, admit that there is no discussion in the judgment on the requirement of the matter being put to trial. The reason is not far to fathom; if it is to be held that in all cases where a compromise decree is challenged on the ground of fraud or und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made to the registered relinquishment deed executed as far back as in January, 2004 though during the hearing it was informed that a suit has now been filed. That suit will be decided on its own merits and is not before this court. The suit court was thus on the basis of the sale deed and the relinquishment deeds before it satisfied of the title of the respondent to the property and of her entitlement to maintain a suit for possession of the property and in the absence of the petitioner claiming any title to the property or to occupy the property, the suit of the respondent was in any case entitled to succeed. The occupation of the petitioner of the property as a son of the respondent was also not out of the ordinary. The suit court was thus perfectly justified in finding the compromise in which the petitioner sought time to vacate the premises and agreed to pay mesne profits and the respondent having agreed to waive the mesne profits if the petitioner vacates the premises on the date undertaken to be lawful and in decreeing the suit. Since the petitioner himself appeared before the court and got recorded his statement in support of the compromise, there could be no question of com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his qualification was not from a prestigious institute. It is not as if the house with respect whereto the relinquishment deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of his mother (respondent herein) belonged only to the father of the petitioner. The sale deed thereof is in favour of the respondent as well as her husband. The respondent mother is stated to have had a career in teaching in a government school and retired as a Principal of the school. It is thus also not as if she had no source of income and the investments in the house were of her husband only. The parties are well educated and not found to be such who could be under the influence of each other. Further, not only did the petitioner execute and register the relinquishment deed of the share inherited by him in the house from his father in favour of his mother but also affirmed the said relinquishment deed. The father of the petitioner was stated to be carrying on business. The vocation of the petitioner has not been disclosed. It is presumed that he was/is also carrying on business. In the circumstances, there can be no case of the petitioner being under the undue influence of his mother. There is no pleading as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of Order 6 Rule 4 of the CPC. No pleading of undue influence to be put to trial is made out. There is only a vague plea of the respondent having filed the suit to disturb the married life of the petitioner and having exercised her undue influence over the petitioner in not allowing the petitioner to contest the suit and in making him to give a statement compromising suit. What one wonders is as to what could have been the defence of the petitioner to the suit. In the face of the sale deed and relinquishment deed (supra) in favour of the respondent, the petitioner virtually had no case. Nothing wrong can thus be found in the petitioner only seeking time of six months to vacate the premises. The making of the said statement by the petitioner was in consonance with the execution of the relinquishment deed three years prior thereto by the petitioner. Before a court can be called upon to examine or investigate whether undue influence was exercised, it must scrutinize the pleadings to find out that such a case had been made out and full particulars of undue influence have been given. 22. Though the court below has in the order impugned in this petition noted that it is not the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e trial court is found to have exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law and in any case no case of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 25. The senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that speed should not be at the cost of procedure. She has also laid emphasis on the counsel who appeared for the petitioner at the time of recording of the compromise being a junior/associate of the counsel appearing for the respondent. However, in my view, the same would not make any difference. I also enquired from the senior counsel for the petitioner as to what evidence, if an opportunity were to be given would be led by the petitioner. The answer is that relatives will be examined to depose that the petitioner did whatever is mother respondent wanted him to do. The said evidence even if any would not dent the compromise decree. The compromise decree, as is now clear, was because the petitioner had no defence to the suit, having executed the relinquishment deed of his share in the property long prior to the institution of the suit. The petitioner was, therefore, well guided to instead of contest the suit seek time to vacate the premises. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
