Lallan Singh vs Dulhin Chandamani Devi and Others

P.S. Mishra, J.—Defendant No. 1 of Title Suit No. 162 of 1972 of the court of 1st Subordinate Judge, Arrah, has moved this Court in appeal against the judgment and decree of the 4th Additional District Judge, Arrah, in Title Appeal No. 87 of 1976. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs'' suit on contest with cost. The court of appeal below has, however, decreed the suit. Relevant facts are as follows:

Sanjogiya, grand-mother of respondents-1st party filed the suit for declaration of her title upon the lands described in the Schedule and for confirmation of possession over the same or in the alternative for recovery of possession. She also prayed to set aside three deeds of gift dated 18.11.1968 alleged to have been executed by her in favour of the defendants, She died during the pendency of the suit. Her grand-daughters (respondents-1st party) were substituted in her place as the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, Halkhori Singh had two sons, namely, Shri Ram Singh and Ramsevak Singh. Shri Ram Singh died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Rajdhari Singh and Algu Singh and his widow Sanjogiya. Rajdhari died in the state of jointness with his brother Algu Singh. Sanjogiya surrendered der interest in favour of Algu Singh. Algu Singh died after he got surrender from Sanjogia leaving behind his widow Matijharia who came in possession over the suit properties, Algu also left behind two daughters, namely, Chandmani and Parbati (respondents-1st party). Ram Janam Singh, who was son of Ram Sewak and father of the appellant, however, during the absence of Matijhari Kuer took Mosst. Sanjogia to Arrah and on the pretext of taking Bazdawa deeds in favour of Matijharia, Chand Mani and Parbati, made her to execute three deeds of gift in the names of his sons on 18.11.1968. On return from Arrah, Sanjogiya told Matijharo everything. Chand Mani''s husband made inquiries on her behalf and on behalf of his wife and sister-in-law and they came to know from the inquiry about the execution of the deeds of gift allegedly executed by Sanjogiya in favour of Ram Janam Singh in the name of his sons. Sanjogiya, thereafter, filed the suit alleging, inter alia, that she was an old illiterate pardanashin lady who could not know the designs of Ram Janam and impleading the three sons of Ram Janam, namely, the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5, alleged that the said three deeds of gift were fraudulent and obtained under undue influence. In their written statement the defendants alleged that Chand Mani and Parbati were not the daughters of Algu but they were daughters of one Sita Ram of Dalipur, that Sanjogia had great affection for them and she gifted away her interest to them by executing the deeds of gift out of her own free will.

The trial court held that the plaintiffs Chandmani and Parbati were the daughters of Algu and, therefore, they had right to be substituted in place of the original plaintiff Sanjogia and to continue the suit. It also found that the deeds of gift executed by Sanjogia in favour of the defendants were legal and binding on the plaintiffs. It accordingly dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs, thereafter, moved in appeal and the court of appeal below held that the deeds of gift dated 18.11.1968 were tainted with fraud and undue influence, and accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit with costs. Defendant No. 1, one of the donees, has moved this Court in appeal against the said judgment.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the court of appeal below has committed error of law in holding that the deeds of gift dated 18.11.1968 were tainted with fraud and undue influence. He has submitted that there has been no allegation of undue influence nor any proof for the same. According to him the court of appeal below could not have held that the gift was affected by fraud in the absence of a finding that any misrepresentation was made by the defendants upon which Sanjogiya executed the deeds of gift. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon several authorities which say that charge of fraud should be established by the party alleging it and urged that there has been no material on the record to hold that Sanjogiya was a Pardanashin lady and/or that the donees used their position of influence upon her to obtain any unfair advantage. There are materials and evidence on the record that Sanjogiya appeared before the Registrar for admitting the execution of the deeds of gift, met her lawyer, verified the pleadings and attended all her responsibilities and works.

Learned Additional District Judge has, however, taken notice of the fact that Sanjogiya was an illiterate old woman who was guided by Ramjanam believing that he sincerely protected her interests. Ramjanam took her to Arrah representing that she was to execute Bazdawa in favour of Motijharia, Chandmani and Parbati but made her execute deeds of gift in favour of his sons (the appellant and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5). True, at some places learned Additional District Judge has described Sanjogia as Pardanashin but he has also referred to the evidence that she was illiterate and old and that Ramjanam was in a position to dominate her will. In Chainta Dasya Vs. Bhalku Das, it has been pointed out:

There is no reason why a rule which is applicable to pardanashin ladies on the ground of their ignorance and illiteracy should be restricted to that class only and should not apply to the cases of a poor woman who is equally ignorant and illiterate and is not pardanashin, simply because she does not belong to that class. If that view of the matter were adopted the effect clearly would be to confer an unfair advantage upon rich woman as compared with poor woman. The object of the rule of law is to protect the weak and helpless and it should not be restricted to a particular class of the woman who is outside the regular pardanashin class, it is for them who deal with her to establish that she had the capacity of understanding that she entered into the transaction voluntarily and with full knowledge and import of what the transaction meant.

In the case of Ashok Kumar and Another Vs. Gaon Sabha, Ratauli and Others, also it has been stated:

It is rot merely by reason of Pardah itself that the law throws its protection around a Pardanashin lady but by reason of those disabilities to which the life or action of people living in seclusion gives rise to the disabilities and with which a pardanashin suffers. Thus the protection necessarily arises from the cause such as old age, infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy, mental deficiency inexperience and dependence upon others. Hence, when in a suit for cancellation of sale deed by the plaintiff, an illiterate, rustic village woman who was not fully capable of understanding and distinguishing between good and bad, the defendants alleged that she had executed a sale deed in their favour but the plaintiff was emphatic in her statement that she only intended to part with the property, the plaintiff being an illiterate rustic village woman would be entitled to the benefit available to a pardanashin lady and it could be said that she was made to sign a document which she never intended to execute and hence the sale deed was liable to be cancelled.

In Mst. Kharbuja Kuer Vs. Jangbahadur Rai, the Supreme Court has laid down that in case of a document taken from'' a pardanashin lady the burden of proof shall always rest upon the person who seeks to sustain the transaction entered into with a pardanashin lady to establish that the said document was entered into by her after clearly understanding the nature of the transaction. Applying this test, therefore, on the facts of the instant case I have no hesitation in concluding that facts alleging that Sanjogia acted believing in what Ramjanam told her and executed the deeds of gift in the belief that she was executing Bazdawa in favour of Majharia, Chandmani and Parbati, although no specific words have been used that Ramjanam exercised undue in Fluence, constitute allegation of undue influence. Fact that Sanjogia was illiterate and an old woman is admitted and although there is no averment or proof that she was a pardanashin woman, still, the defendants are required to prove that the deeds of gift were not obtained by undue influence. ''Undue influence'' is an expression which can be spelled out from the facts with reference to intrinsic circumstances. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Subhas Chandra Das Mushib Vs. Ganga Prosad Das Mushib and Others, which says:

It is a mistake to treat undue influence as having been established by a proof of the relations of the parties having been such that the one naturally relied upon the other for advice and the other was in a position to dominate the will of the first in giving it. Up to that point "influence" alone has been made out. Such influence may be used wisely, judiciously and helpfully. But whether by the law of India or the law of England, more than mere influence must be proved so as to render influence, in the language of the law, "undue".

Learned counsel has conceded that Ramjanam was in the position to dominate the will of Sanjogia, but has contended that the plaintiff could succeed only by further showing that Ramjanam exercised some thing more than mere influence. That some thing more than mere influence, however, according to him is absent in the instant case. I am afraid this contention cannot be accepted. Learned Additional District Judge has found that Ramjanam took Sanjogia to Arrah where she allegedly admitted execution of the deeds of gift. She has asserted in the plaint that she did not realised then that she was made to execute deeds of gift because Ramjanam told her that she was executing Bazdawa in favour of her grand-daughters. This execution of the deeds of gift left Sanjogia with no property at ''all and deprived her grand-daughters any benefit from the properties belonging to her. The poor woman after executing the said deeds of gift became a beggar even for her subsistence. Donees, sons of Ramjanam, were not entitled to inherit in presence of Sanjogia''s grand-daughters''. In the garb of the deeds of gift they appropriated what naturally belonged to the granddaughter by way of inheritance. Ramjanam who was in the position to dominate Sanjogia''s will, influenced her mind by a fraud, a misrepresentation that she was executing Bazdawas in favour of her grand-daughters. The influence, which Ramjanam had upon Sanjogia because of his position and the transactions which he obtained in favour of his sons from Sanjogia, leave no manner of doubt that he exercised undue influence and the transactions were unconscionable. In case of unconscionable transaction onus, lies upon the party suggesting that the document, in question, is free from any taint or doubt. I am satisfied that the court of appeal below has committed no error of law in holding that the deeds of gift in question were null and void.

In the result this appeal is dismissed but on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, there shall be no order to costs.