Taj Mahal Hotel v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd
- 2022-02-17
Citation- AIR 2019 SC 4374
Judges- Hon’ble Navin Sinha and Hon’ble Indira Banerjee
Facts:
The Plaintiffs alleged that the original Defendants obtained the sale deed from their father, since deceased, in favour of Defendant No. 1, fraudulently, by deceit and undue influence because of old age and infirmity of the deceased and who was living with the Defendants. The suit was dismissed. The appellate court allowed the appeal holding that the Defendants had failed to discharge their burden of being in a position to dominate the will of the deceased by undue influence. The High Court reversed the order of the first appellate court and restored the dismissal of the suit.
Issues:
Whether original Defendants obtained sale deed from their father, fraudulently, by deceit and undue influence?
Judgement:
The court held that deceased on account of his advanced age may have been old and infirm with a deteriorating eye sight, and unable to move freely. There was no credible evidence that he was bed ridden. Hardness of hearing by old age cannot be equated with deafness. The Plaintiff, despite being the son of the deceased, except for bald statement in the plaint, has not led any evidence in support of his averments. It was an undisputed fact that the deceased appeared before the sub-registrar for registration. It demolishes the entire case of the Plaintiff that the deceased was bed ridden. He had put his thumb impression in presence of the sub-registrar after the sale deed had been read over and explained to him. The deceased had acknowledged receipt of the entire consideration in presence of the sub-registrar only after which the deed was executed and registered. The wife of the deceased had accompanied him to the office of the sub-registrar. The sale deed being a registered instrument, there shall be a presumption in favour of the Defendants. The onus for rebuttal lay on the Plaintiff which he failed to discharge.
In the changing times and social mores, that to straightway infer undue influence merely because a sibling was looking after the family elder, is an extreme proposition which could not be countenanced in absence of sufficient and adequate evidence. Any other interpretation by inferring a reverse burden of proof straightway, on those who were taking care of the elders, as having exercised undue influence could lead to very undesirable consequences. It may not necessarily lead to neglect, but could certainly create doubts and apprehensions leading to lack of full and proper care under the fear of allegations with regard to exercise of undue influence. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Analysis:
While analysing undue influence it must be noted that merely because the parties were nearly related to each other no presumption of undue influence can arise. Undue influence cannot be established only on the proof of relationship between parties and dominance of will.
