RAJA RAM versus JAI PRAKASH SINGH AND OTHERS

RAJA RAM versus JAI PRAKASH SINGH AND OTHERS

Pleadings and evidence did not establish a prima facie case of undue influence; the deceased was not shown to be completely physically or mentally incapacitated; the sale deed was a registered instrument and, absent rebuttal, attracted a presumption in favour of the respondents; mere fact that respondents looked after the deceased did not, without specific particulars and evidence, justify inferring undue influence or shifting the burden to respondents under Section 16 read with Section 111.

Parties
Appellant: Raja Ram; Respondents: Jai Prakash Singh and others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment by the Supreme Court on Appeal From High Court Order Dated 15.12.2008
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order restoring dismissal of the suit is upheld
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Free Consent, Burden of Proof, Presumption as to Registered Instruments, Fiduciary Relationship
Indian Contract Act, 1872 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Property Law (sale Deed/registration) Undue Influence Free Consent Burden of Proof Presumption as to Registered Instruments Fiduciary Relationship

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raja Ram

Appellant

Jai Prakash Singh and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment by the Supreme Court on Appeal From High Court Order Dated 15.12.2008

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale deed dated 02.03.1970 was induced by undue influence under Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
  2. 2 Whether the deceased had the mental and physical capacity to execute the sale deed
  3. 3 Whether the burden under Section 16 read with Section 111 of the Evidence Act shifted to the defendants after a prima facie case was made

Ratio Decidendi

Pleadings and evidence did not establish a prima facie case of undue influence; the deceased was not shown to be completely physically or mentally incapacitated; the sale deed was a registered instrument and, absent rebuttal, attracted a presumption in favour of the respondents; mere fact that respondents looked after the deceased did not, without specific particulars and evidence, justify inferring undue influence or shifting the burden to respondents under Section 16 read with Section 111.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order restoring dismissal of the suit is upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs