Sale Deed

Sale deed - Whether vitiated due to undue influence – Sale deed challenged on the ground that they were not executed by him out of his free will and volition - Burden of proving that the documents were vitiated due to undue influence is upon the person who is challenging the documents - The plaint averments are vague - Merely because the parties are related to each other or merely because the executant was old or of weak character, no presumption of undue influence can arise - Court must scrutinise the pleadings to find out that such plea has been made out before examining whether undue influence was exercised or not. (2018)2 SCeJ 1903

Contract Act,  S. 16(1) – Undue influence -  Under Section 16(1) of the Indian Contract Act a contract is said to be induced by undue influence where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. This shows that the court trying a case of undue influence must consider two things to start with, namely, (1) are the relations between the donor and the donee such that the donee is in a position to dominate the will of the donor and (2) has the donee used that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the donor. Subhas Chandr Das Mushib v. Ganga Prasad Das Mushib and Others AIR 1967 SC 878 followed in (2018)2 SCeJ 1903


Contract Act,  S. 16(1) – Undue influence - Three stages for consideration of a case of undue influence -  “In the first place the relations between the parties to each other must be such that one is in a position to dominate the will of the other. Once that position is substantiated the second stage has been reached — namely, the issue whether the contract has been induced by undue influence. Upon the  determination of this issue a third point emerges, which is that of the onus probandi. If the transaction appears to be unconscionable, then the burden of proving that the contract was not induced by undue influence is to lie upon the person who was in a position to dominate the will of the other. Error is almost sure to arise if the order of these propositions be changed. The unconscionableness of the bargain is not the first thing to be considered. The first thing to be considered is the relations of these parties. Were they such as to put one in a position to dominate the will of the other?” Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad and Others (AIR 1924 PC 60)  followed in (2018)2 SCeJ 1903

Sale Deed – Learned First Appellate Court has refused to grant injunction on the ground that there is no evidence of delivery of possession in favour of the appellant, hence, the exclusive possession of the plaintiff is not proved - Possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-appellant is proved from the previous judgment - The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-appellant thereafter sold the property to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed - It is specifically recorded in the aforesaid sale deed that the possession has been delivered to the plaintiff-appellant - The sale deed is a registered document - The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff are not disputing delivery of the possession to him – Reasons assigned is erroneous.    (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER


Sale deed – Whether a non party to the sale deed is bound by the description of the properties situated on four sides? – A non party to the instrument is not bound by the contents of the aforesaid instrument.       (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.