Ravikumar and Geetha Balakrishnan v. Karthiyani Amma

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. Somarajan
Judgment Date: 2019-10-18
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed; no costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ravikumar, s/o Parameswara Panicker
Geetha Balakrishnan, wife of Ravikumar

Respondents

Karthiyani Amma

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Mathew John (K)
• Sri. Ajeesh K. SasI

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. M.P. Madhavankutty

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit to set aside Ext. A2, a sale deed obtained by the second defendant from an elderly, childless woman who lived with the plaintiff and her ailing husband. The appellants, Ravikumar and Geetha Balakrishnan, allegedly approached the plaintiff under the guise of assisting her and induced her to part with property in Ettumanoor by promising alternative immovable property and continued medical support. After Ext. A2 was executed, the defendants allegedly accompanied the plaintiff to Ettumanoor and later returned her to the plaint schedule property, prompting the suit within three months. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed in favor of the defendants. The High Court, in hearing the Regular Second Appeal on 18.10.2019, held that where a transfer is alleged to have been obtained through undue influence, the burden rests on the party in a fiduciary or confidential relationship to prove fair dealing, not merely the existence of fraud. It cited Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Chandrab Kul and others v. Pratima Maity (2004 KHC 903) to emphasize that the dominant party bears the onus to show fairness and bona fides, and that the transaction is not void ipso facto but must be shown to be fair. The court noted no contra evidence; PW1 testified, while no defence witnesses were examined. Consequently, the RSA was dismissed; although the court acknowledged that on certain grounds relief to set aside can be moulded, the appellants’ appeal was rejected with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 111, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Indian Contract Act (general reference)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

In fiduciary/confidential relationships, the burden of proving absence of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence lies on the party in active confidence (dominant party).
A transaction in such contexts is not void ipso facto; the onus is on the dominant party to show fair dealing, adequacy and equity.
The initial burden to challenge a validly executed document lies on the challenger to prove the vitiating grounds under the Indian Contract Act.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that Ext. A2 was procured from an old, destitute woman through misrepresentation and under the cover of care, exploiting a fiduciary relationship; they seek to set aside the deed or grant declaratory relief; they rely on the principle that the party in dominating position must prove fairness in the transaction and there was no proof of such fairness.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that while misrepresentation may be alleged, the burden lies with the challenger to prove that the deed is not valid due to fraud or undue influence; without defence witnesses and given the lack of contravening evidence, the court should uphold the lower court’s findings unless substantial questions of law arise.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Krishna Mohan kul @ Nani Chandrab Kul and another v. Pratima Maity and others	2004 KHC 903	Positive	Cited to illustrate the burden of proof in undue influence cases within fiduciary relationships; used to support the onus on the dominant party to show fairness and bona fides.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN** **FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 26TH ASWINA, 1941** ## **RSA.No.785 OF 2008** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN AS 114/2004 DATED 31-07-2008 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 450/1999 DATED 07-02-2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:** **1 RAVIKUMAR, S/O PARAMESWARA PANICKER, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR VADASSERY ILLOM, ETTUMANOOR KIZHAKKENADA, NOW RESIDING AT NADAKKAL HOUSE, NAGAMBADAM POST, KOTTAYAM DIST. 2 GEETHA BALAKRISHNAN W/O.RAVIKUMAR -DO-. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI** ## **RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:** **KARTHIAYANI AMMA, D/O NANIKUTTYAMMA, MURUKA NIVAS FROM THEKKILLATHU, PERUNNA EAST MURI, CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE.** ## **R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY** **THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **RSA.No.785 OF 2008** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** A sale deed was obtained by the second defendant from an age old lady having no children leading a life of solitude, by taking advantage of her old-age is the case advanced by the plaintiff for setting aside the document of transfer Ext.A2, a sale deed. The first defendant is the husband of second defendant and she is the daughter of one of the brothers of plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, it was obtained by misrepresentation that she would be given some other immoveable property and a house in Ettumanoor so that she can continue her remaining life in Ettumanoor along with her age-old husband. The trial court dismissed the suit, but in appeal, it was decreed. 2. It is an admitted case that the plaintiff was leading somewhat a life of solitude except the company of her age-old husband. As there was no issues in the wedlock, the defendants 1 and 2 who are the brother's daughter and son-in-law used to **RSA.No.785 OF 2008** **3** come in their house under the guise of helping them. While so, they made a representation to the plaintiff that in order to continue their treatment in the Medical College, it is better to purchase some property in Ettumanoor with a house and under that guise, they obtained Ext.A2 sale deed in their favour dominating the will of plaintiff. The plaintiff is an age-old lady was leading a life of destitute along with her husband and they were suffering from various ailments at that time. Just after the execution of sale deed, both of them were taken to the house of defendants in Ettumanoor for some time. But they were forced to return back their house in the plaint schedule property and instituted the present suit just after three months from the date of execution of the said document. The plaintiff took pain to give oral evidence as PW1 and examined two witnesses PW2 and PW3. None of the defendants mounted on the box to give any direct evidence and no witness was examined and no **RSA.No.785 OF 2008** **4** contra evidence was adduced. 3. It is submitted by the defendant that the suit is one for declaring the document as void and there is no prayer for setting aside the document on any vitiating ground. The relief of setting aside a document is a lessor relief to the relief of declaring the document as void or not. As such, when it was found that the document stood vitiated by undue influence and misrepresentation, the same can be set aside by moulding the relief granting a lessor relief. 4. The Apex Court had the occasion to consider the burden lies on the person when there is a document of transfer alleged to have been obtained by accepting undue influence in _**Krishna Mohan kul @**_ _**Nani Chandrab Kul and another v. Pratima Maity and**_ _**others (2004 KHC 903)**_ , paragraph 12 of the said judgment extracted below for reference: “ As has been pointed out by the High Court, the first Appellate Court totally ignored the relevant materials and recorded **RSA.No.785 OF 2008** **5** a completely erroneous finding that there was no material regarding age of the executant when the document in question itself indicated the age. The Court was dealing with a case where an old, ailing illiterate person was stated to be the executant and no witness was examined to prove the execution of the deed or putting of the thumb impression. It has been rightly noticed by the High Court that the courts below have wrongly placed onus to prove execution of the deed by Dasu Charan Kul on the plaintiffs. There was challenge by the plaintiffs to validity of the deed. The onus to prove the validity of the deed of settlement was on defendant No. 1. When fraud, mis-representation or undue influence is alleged by a party in a suit, normally, the burden is on him to prove such fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation. But, when a person is in a fiduciary relationship with another and the later is in a position of active confidence the burden of proving the absence of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence is upon the person in the dominating position, he has to prove that there was fair play in the transaction and that the apparent is the real, in other words, that the transaction is genuine and bona fide. In such a case the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is thrown upon the dominant party, that is to **RSA.No.785 OF 2008** **6** |say, the party who is in a position of| |---| |active confidence. A person standing in a| |fiduciary relation to another has a duty to| |protect the interest given to his care and| |the Court watches with jealously all| |transactions between such persons so that| |the protector may not use his influence or| |the confidence to his advantage. When the| |party complaining shows such relation, the| |law presumes everything against the| |transaction and the onus is cast upon the| |person holding the position of confidence or| |trust to show that the transaction is| |perfectly fair and reasonable, that no| |advantage has been taken of his position.| |This principle has been engrained in<br>Section| |111<br>of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in| |short the '<br>Evidence Act<br>'). The rule here| |laid down is in accordance with a principle| |long acknowledged and administered in Courts| |of Equity in England and America. This| |principle is that he who bargains in a| |matter of advantage with a person who places| |a confidence in him is bound to show that a| |proper and reasonable use has been made of| |that confidence. The transaction is not| |necessarily void ipso facto, nor is it| |necessary for those who inpeach it to| |establish that there has been fraud or| |imposition, but the burden of establishing| |its perfect fairness, adequacy and equity is| |cast upon the person in whom the confidence| **RSA.No.785 OF 2008** **7** has been reposed. The rule applies equally to all persons standing in confidential relations with each other. Agents, trustees, executors, administrators, auctioneers, and others have been held to fall without the rule. The Section requires that the party on whom the burden of proof is laid should have been in a position of active confidence. Where fraud is alleged, the rule has been clearly established in England that in the case of a stranger equity will not set aside a voluntary deed or donation, however, improvement it may be, if it be free from the imputation of fraud, surprise, undue influence and spontaneously executed or made by the donor with his eyes open. Where an active, confidential, or fiduciary relation exists between the parties, there the burden of proof is on the donee or those claiming through him. It has further been laid down that where a person gains a great advantage over another by a voluntary instrument, the burden of proof is thrown upon the person receiving the benefit and he is under the necessity of showing that the transaction is fair and honest. 5. The legal Proposition laid down by the Apex Court that the initial burden always lies on a person who challenges a document which was validly executed and registered, if it is vitiated by any of the **RSA.No.785 OF 2008** **8** vitiating ground enumerated under the Contract Act. No contra evidence was adduced by the defendant. The plaintiff had given oral evidence as PW1 and examined two witnesses and thereby discharged the initial burden explaining the circumstances under which the document was executed. No substantial question of law brought to the notice of this court. Hence the appeal fails, dismissed. No costs. **Sd/-** ## **P.SOMARAJAN** **JUDGE** mpm