NINGAWWA versus BYRAPPA & 3 ORS.

NINGAWWA versus BYRAPPA & 3 ORS.

The inclusion of Lingadahalli village plots in the gift deed was fraudulent and voidable; the suit for setting aside the gift deed regarding those plots was filed within limitation under Article 95 as the fraud became known only after the husband’s death. Regarding Tadavalga plots, the appellant knew at execution that her husband prevailed upon her by undue influence, so the suit was barred by limitation under Article 91 as time ran from the date of execution.

Parties
Appellant: Ningawwa; Respondent: Byrappa; Respondent: Second wife of Shiddappa; Respondent: Children of Shiddappa through respondent no. 4
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 January 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed partly
Legal Topics
Gift Deed, Limitation, Undue Influence, Fraud
Property Law Contract Law Evidence Law Gift Deed Limitation Undue Influence Fraud

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ningawwa

Appellant

Byrappa

Respondent

Second wife of Shiddappa

Respondent

Children of Shiddappa through respondent no. 4

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inclusion of Lingadahalli plots in the gift deed was fraudulent and void or voidable.
  2. 2 What is the period of limitation and starting point for a suit to set aside the gift deed on grounds of undue influence and fraud?
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's suit is time-barred regarding plots in Tadavalga village.

Ratio Decidendi

The inclusion of Lingadahalli village plots in the gift deed was fraudulent and voidable; the suit for setting aside the gift deed regarding those plots was filed within limitation under Article 95 as the fraud became known only after the husband’s death. Regarding Tadavalga plots, the appellant knew at execution that her husband prevailed upon her by undue influence, so the suit was barred by limitation under Article 91 as time ran from the date of execution.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed partly

Orders

  • Gift deed Ex. 45 is not binding on appellant so far as plots 91 and 92 of Lingadahalli village are concerned.
  • Appellant entitled to recover possession of Lingadahalli plots from defendants with mesne profits.