| Citation | 1970 SC; (1970) 3 SCC 159 |
| Date of Judgment | 10 March, 1970 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Civil Appeal No. 156 of 1967 |
| Plaintiff | Lakshmi Amma |
| Respondent | Narayana Bhatta |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice A.G. Shah, Hon’ble Justice K.Hegde, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Grover |
| Referred | Section- Section 16 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 |
FACTS:
This is a special leave of absence appeal against the Kerala High Court ruling and order whereby the appeal of Preferred Defendant 1 was approved and the case dismissed.
- Plaintiff filed a civil suit on his daughter and friend for the testamentary will which was implemented by the respondents.
- The plaintiff however gifted one of his properties to his grandson who is a respondent now.
- Plaintiff has the complete right over the property and has also made some provision for his spouse i.e., Lakshmi Amma who is also an appellant/ plaintiff in this case.
- The plaintiff had claimed that the respondents had taken over the property with undue influence, (Section 16) of the Indian Contract Act. This section states that any contract which is done under section 16 of undue influence is voidable because consent was not given at 1st place by the aggrieved party. Now, to prove that undue influence took place, there are certain conditions which are to be fulfilled under this section.
- However, the respondent said that the plaintiff did not implement the will under section 16 of ICA, 1872, and was when the plaintiff was in a fragile mind.
ISSUE:
- Whether the settlement of the deed was executed in circumstances that deemed it invalid and void?
ARGUMENTS:
An agreement with “undue influence” is an agreement in which one of the contracting parties abuses a dominant position in the market to suit itself. A person is said to be “in control” when he is in a position of apparent or fiduciary control, or when he deliberately enters into an agreement with a person of ill will. In such cases, it is clear that one of the parties wanted to defend his position and thus such agreements are null and void at the option of the other. In Lakshmi Amma v T. Narayana Bhatta, the plaintiff executed a settlement giving the entire property to one of her grandsons (the first defendant) and the Supreme Court held that it was a prima facie case of undue influence when the plaintiff was in manager. position The existence of a fiduciary relationship does not in itself indicate undue influence. In addition, it must be shown that the position was used to gain an unfair advantage. Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act also applies where A exerts undue influence on B to compel B to enter into a transaction with a third party and A himself has not derived any benefit. In Griffith v. Brymer said that contracts made on the basis of a misrepresentation of fact are void.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
When a person has some illness that causes him to enter a nursing home and from there, the person decides documents to give all his property to one of his sons to the exclusion of others, assuming about undue influence is deemed appropriate.
DECISION:
The Supreme Court upheld the first-instance judgment and annulled the High Court’s judgment. Facts have been found to prove that the action taken is real. Defendant failed to convince the court of this action. Appeals were allowed at cost.
REFERENCES:
https://lawplanet.in/lakshmi-amma-vs-t-narayana-bhatta-case-summary-1970-sc/
This Article is written by Bhavya Arora of Lloyd Law College, an Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
