KRISHNA MOHAN KUL @ NANI CHARAN KUL AND ANR. versus PRATIMA MAITY AND ORS.

KRISHNA MOHAN KUL @ NANI CHARAN KUL AND ANR. versus PRATIMA MAITY AND ORS.

The High Court was justified in interfering under Section 100 CPC, as the lower courts wrongly placed the burden of proving the validity of the deed of settlement on the plaintiffs. The appellants, being in a fiduciary relationship with the aged executant, had the onus to prove absence of undue influence. The deed was void and invalid as the execution was not duly proved and the executant was not in a fit condition.

Parties
Appellant Defendant: Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul and Anr.; Respondent Plaintiff: Pratima Maity and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Calcutta High Court Judgment in Second Appeal No. 133 of 1999
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Fiduciary Relationship, Fraud, Undue Influence, Validity of Settlement Deed
Property Law Civil Procedure Burden of Proof Fiduciary Relationship Fraud Undue Influence Validity of Settlement Deed

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul and Anr.

Appellant Defendant

Pratima Maity and Ors.

Respondent Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Calcutta High Court Judgment in Second Appeal No. 133 of 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed of settlement executed by the predecessor in-interest of the parties is valid in law.
  2. 2 Whether the judgments of the courts below are perverse in appreciating the deed of settlement.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court was justified in interfering under Section 100 CPC, as the lower courts wrongly placed the burden of proving the validity of the deed of settlement on the plaintiffs. The appellants, being in a fiduciary relationship with the aged executant, had the onus to prove absence of undue influence. The deed was void and invalid as the execution was not duly proved and the executant was not in a fit condition.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs are permanently injuncted from disturbance of possession by defendants in the suit property.
  • No order as to costs.