SUBHAS CHANDRA DAS MUSHIB V/S GANGA PROSAD DAS MUSHIB AND ORS., 1966

Spread the love

Post Views: 1,359

SUBHAS CHANDRA DAS MUSHIB V/S GANGA PROSAD DAS MUSHIB AND ORS., 1966

CITATION	1967 AIR 878, 1967 SCR (1) 331
DATE OF JUDGMENT	14^th SEPTEMBER, 1966
COURT	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PETITIONER	GANGA PROSAD DAS MUSHIB AND ORS.
RESPONDENT	SUBHAS CHANDRA DAS MUSHIB
BENCH	MITTER, G.K. WANCHOO, K.N. SHELAT, J.M

INTRODUCTION

The origin of the petitioner’s lawsuit is an attempt to declare a settlement deed fraudulent, collusive and void. On July 22, 19144, the deed was executed by the petitioner’s father and sister in favour of the petitioner’s brother’s son. It was regarding properties in Lokepur village, and the petitioner aims to cancel the document entirely. After considering the situation the High Court decided to proceed because of the relationship among the involved parties and the circumstances. They believe that the trial court should hold the assumption that the recipient held influence over the donor, therefore the respondents must prove that the donors exercised an independent will. For the gift to be made genuinely, it should have been voluntary. However, the court originally presumed the mental capacity of the donor had declined over time due to his senior age, creating the premises for his younger son to exert undue influence over him while he was making the gift.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Prasanna Kumar was the petitioner’s father. He owned land in two villages with eight annas share in each, though the precise value of these properties is unknown. These villages went by the name of Parbatipur and Lokepur. The Lokepur properties are more important to the facts of the lawsuit, therefore we can reasonably assume they held greater value.

In January of February 1948, Prasanna Kumar passed away. He was estimated to be around 90 years old at the time. The family members he left behind included his wife and his two sons Ganga Prosad, the petitioner, and Balaram, the second respondent. Other family members included a daughter, Swarnalata, and a grandson, Subhas Chandra, the first respondent.

Ganga Prosad had no sons of his own and worked at the Bankura Medical School from 1932 to 1934. Following his work at the medical school, he served as a contractor and then worked at the Searsole Raj Estate from November 1944 to 1948. Here in Bankura, he managed his father’s property, according to his testimony. As for when the deed was registered, there is no exact proof of the petitioner’s presence in Bankura at that point, but he claims he wasn’t there. Balaram, on the other hand, chose to stay with his father and did not move locations to pursue employment elsewhere. Swarnalata lived with her parents due to becoming a widow when she was a child.

Prasanna auctioned the Lokepur properties and bought them because of rent arrears, all in Subhas Chandra’s name. This was most likely out of the camaraderie between a grandparent and their grandchild. and acted as a gift deed.

Moving forward, Prasanna was sued in 1947 by the Bankura Municipal Commissioners for unpaid taxes. However, in his statement, Prasanna denied any property interests. When Prasanna passed away, the Municipal Commissioners were only able to obtain a decree against Balaram. They were unable to serve the petitioner with a summons.

More than four years after Prasanna passed away, in 1952, the lawsuit was initiated by Ganga Prosad, the petitioner. This was also over eight years after the transaction.

According to evidence, Balaram made many land settlements in Lokepur between 1944 and 1948. Jointly with other co-sharers, Prasanna attested to these settlements. Though the petitioner attended his father’s funeral in 1948 and therefore was in contact with his family members, he alleges that he was unaware of any Lokepur land settlements post-1944. Never did he pay rent to superior landlords. Two years before filing the suit, he only learned about the settlement deed from his cousins, who didn’t testify.

ISSUES RAISED

Is the gift from the grandfather to the first respondent valid, and is it in existence? If yes, will the lawsuit be able to proceed without the gift deed being set aside?
What was the dynamic between Balaram and Prasanna? Was Balaram in a position to exert undue influence over Prasanna’s decisions? Did he use this influence to gain an unfair advantage in the dispute?
What was the nature of the position Balaram had over his father? was it a position of actual or apparent authority, or was it a fiduciary relationship? How was Prasanna’s mental capacity affected by his age and illness? Was his mental ability temporarily or permanently degraded?
If it is proven that one party was in a position of undue influence over the other, then the transaction may appear invalid. On which party does the burden fall to prove that the contract wasn’t made under undue influence? How will this be proven?

CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER

Upon taking the advice of Balaram, the second respondent, the petitioner’s father and the third respondent, Swarnalata, planned a covert Nirupan Patra regarding the mentioned property. The Nirupan Patra was in favour of the first respondent, Subhas Chandra. This was all done without the knowledge of the petitioner on July 22, 1944. The document only came to the petitioner’s awareness on June 13, 1952, and that too from the reports of others.
Moreover, the petitioner asserts that his father was 90 years old when he executed the Nirupan Patra. There is a high chance that his mental state had decayed and that was experiencing senility. Due to his senile tenor, he was incapable of determining right from wrong; he did not possess the capacity to consent to an agreement of his own will. Someone’s capacity to consent is only possible when they possess a sound mind that can make decisions voluntarily.
The petitioner argues that these events came to his knowledge only on June 13, 1952. In his absence, he alleges that Balaram took advantage and exerted undue influence over their father. The petitioner also alleges that Balaram induced and misled Swarnalata, thereby also practising influence over her until the deed was fraudulently executed in favour of the first respondent, who happens to be Balaram’s son. Both the first respondent and his father lived in the same household.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

In a written response to the petitioner Ganga Prosad, the first and second respondents (Subhas Chandra and Balaram) refuted the opposing side’s claims. They mainly touched on the abilities of Prasanna Kumar to make decisions of his own volition despite his elderly age. The first respondent, Subhas Chandra, was Prasanna’s grandson. He lamented about his grandfather’s keen intellect and unrivalled worldly knowledge. He was a quick-thinking man with a distinct wisdom. He lived an active and robust life until his final moments. The possibility of anyone exerting influence over him was implausible.
As per the first respondent, Prasanna decided to gift the properties out of his free will and in good faith. It was part of a family settlement with the first respondent, his grandson. He had a friendly rapport with his kin and possessed a deep affection for the first respondent, a beloved family member. Prasanna had noble intentions and considered everyone around him before going forth with the gift deed.

JUDGEMENT

The honourable Supreme Court established in this case the key aspects of what constitutes undue influence. They remarked on two points to be assessed:

What is the nature of the relationship between the donor and the donee? The donee must be in a position to exert influence over the donor’s decisions.
Has the donee utilised this position of power to gain an undue advantage over the donor?

When the crucial factors have been deliberated upon, the third element emerges, which is the burden of proof. The court observed in its decision that the original complaint of the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to prove undue influence. If a transaction seems to be prime facie unfair, the burden of proving that the contract was not agreed to by undue influence falls upon the party holding dominance over the other.

A Court cannot presume that a relationship of undue influence exists simply because of close relations between the parties, the donor’s age or his weak character, as emphasised by the judgement. Giving gifts to a son, grandson or son-in-law does not comprise the requirements for the presumption of undue influence, even if the donor is ill or reaching their demise. These types of presumptions instead arise in relationships like those between solicitor and client, trustee and beneficiary, medical practitioner and patient, or spiritual mentor and devotee.

ANALYSIS

First, we must analyse the fundamental parts of undue influence and where the burden of proof would fall when a petitioner seeks a solution using this justification. We must also look into holding the respondent responsible for demonstrating that undue influence did not induce the formation of a contract.

The law has established that the rules for undue influence to apply remain the same whether it concerns a contract or a gift inter vivos. Section 16(1) of the Indian Contract Act covers undue influence. A contract is thought to be entered into by undue influence if the relationship between the two parties is unequal and one party has the power to influence the decisions of the other to gain an unfair advantage. A court investigating a possible case of undue must assess the following aspects: (1) whether the donee practised dominance over the will of the donor and (2) the potential unfair advantage gained by the donee due to their position.
How someone can be deemed to dominate another’s will is delineated in Section 16(2). Some scenarios where this is possible are those where the donee holds a fiduciary relationship, is in a position of authority, or agrees to enter a contract with a person who is mentally incapable of contracting due to age or illness. Some relationships which give rise to undue influence include solicitor-client, trustee-beneficiary, spiritual mentor-devotee, medical practitioner-patient, or parent-child relationships.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in “Poosathurai v. Kappanna Chettiar” emphasised that close relations between parties do not guarantee the presumption of undue influence. This lies at the crux of the present case, as influence does not automatically translate to undue influence. Using the terms of the law, it must be proven further that the influence surpassed regular influence and became “undue”.
Section 16(3) stipulates the burden of proof in a case of undue influence. If two elements, dominating the will of another and an unconscionable transaction, are found against a person, then the burden of disproving undue influence falls upon the shoulders of the beneficiary (the donee)
In the case of “Raghunath Prasad v. Sarja Prasad”, the stages to evaluate undue influence were explained.

The High Court was not able to find enough evidence to prove that Balram dominated his father’s decisions during or after the gift’s execution. Furthermore, the High Court did not declare the transaction unconscionable just because it was a grandfather gifting his sole grandson a gift. Even though it was shortly before his passing, Prasanna seemed to managing his property actively. He also owned separate property. The gift deed did not cover all the joint properties, but instead only a portion of the properties.

CONCLUSION

Undue influence is the necessary claim raised in the pleadings of this case which informs the central issue being examined. From this ruling, we can conclude that before the Court can determine whether someone exercised undue influence, the pleadings must go through a thorough examination to ensure that all evidence needed to prove undue influence has been touched upon and substantiated. The details of this case were found to lack sufficient evidence for undue influence.

There is an initial requirement under Section 16 of the Contract Act – it must be clarified that one party could dominate the will of the other. The nature of their relationship should be clear. However, mere close relations are not enough to imply that an unfair advantage of one over the other exists. Undue influence also encompasses a needed power imbalance and consequent ability to coerce an individual. When one party is under the undue influence of another, they cannot truly consent out of their own free will, and therefore a contract cannot be formed.

REFERENCES

This Article is written by Eshal Zahur student of National Law University, Odisha; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.