Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is settled law that a vague and general plea of undue influence will not be sufficient when the plaintiff comes forward with an action to set aside a contract on that ground or for fraud. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinise the pleadings to find out that a plea has been made and full particulars thereof have been given before considering whether undue influence has been made out or not.
This statement of the general rule of law however has got several exceptions and it is said to record that such exceptions were not brought to the notice of either the Trial Court or the Court of Appeal below. A rule of non est factum which in full reads non est factum, scriptum, predictum non est factum sum has existed as a rule of law in England as well as in India and there has been a good deal of improvement in this behalf, while applying the rule of burden of proof in evidence to Women in India. While affirming a judgment by Mohan, J., in K. Varadhan v. Pattammal (1992)2 L.W. 209, a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us was a member, has stated as follows:

5. In the case of Madhavakrishnan v. Sami , a reference has been made to the doctrine of non est factum also. But this has been explained after a statement of the general rule of law that a party of full age and understanding is normally bound by his signature to a document whether he reads it or understands it or not. Because, equity does not save people from the consequence of their own folly but will save them from being vitimised by other people. The learned Judge who has delivered the judgment in the Court has stated:

...Sir Raymond Evershed, M.R. has observed in Tufton v. Sperm, as follows:
Extravagant liberality and immoderate folly do not of themselves provide a passport to equitable relief.
But if, however, a party has been misled in executing a deed or signing a document essentially different from that which he intended to execute or sign, he can plead non est factum in an action against him and the deed or writing is completely void in whomsoever hands it may come. As Byles, J., said in Foster v. Mackinnon:
In a recent case in Saunders v. Anglia Building Society, the House of Lords had to consider the scope of the doctrine of non est factum in the following circumstances. G, a widow aged 78, who had a leasehold interest in a house, gave the deeds to her trusted nephew, intending to make a gift to him to take effect immediately. She knew that her nephew wished to raise money on the house and that L, her nephew's business associate was to collaborate with the nephew in raising money on the house. In June, 1962, L, asked her to sign a document. She had broken her spectacles and could not read it. She asked what it was and L. told her that it was a deed of gift of the house of her nephew. She..."executed it in that belief, and the nephew witnessed the execution, it being part of his arrangement with L., that L. should raise money on the house and repay it to the nephew by instalments. The document signed was in fact an assignment of the house by her to L. for Pound 3,000. The 3,000 pounds was never paid nor intended to be paid to her. L. having obtained the deed and a reference as to his reliability from the nephew, mortgaged the house for 2,000 pounds to a building Society, but used the money so raised to pay his debts and defaulted on the mortgage instalments. The building society sought to obtain possession of the house, G., at the nephew's instigation began an action, in which she pleaded non est factum, against L., and the building society and asked for a declaration that the assignment was void and that the title deeds should be delivered to her. The trial Judge found that G., did not read the document, that L., represented it to her as a deed of gift to the nephew; that she executed it in that belief; and that a sale or gift to L., was something which she did not and would not ever have contemplated; and he held that the plea of..."non est factum was established and granted the declaration asked for. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision. An appeal to the House of Lords the following propositions were laid down : (1) The plea of non est factum can only rarely be established by a person of full capacity; and, although it is not confined to blind or illiterate persons, any extension in the scope of the plea will be kept within narrow limits. (2) The burden of establishing the plea falls on the signatory seeking to disown the documents; and he must show that, in signing the document he acted with reasonable care. Carelessness which would preclude him from pleading non est factum is based on the principle that no man can take advantage of his own wrong and is not an instance of negligence operating by way of estoppel. (3) In relation to the extent and nature of the mistake relied upon to set up the plea, the distinction formerly drawn between the character and class and the contents of a document is unsatisfactory. For the plea to succeed, it is essential to show that there is as regards the transaction a radical or "fundamental distinction between what the person seeking to set up the plea actually signed and what he thought was signing. The decision of the House of Lords in this case is particularly significant in so far as it has held that a person who signs a document may not be permitted to raise the defence of non est factum where he has been guilty of carelessness in appending his signature. It was formerly held in Carlisle and Cumberland Banking Co. v. Bragg, and other cases that negligence was only material where the document actually signed was a negotiable instrument, for there was not otherwise any duty of care owned by the person executing the document to an innocent third party who acted in reliance on it. The House of Lords in Sounders v. Anglia Building Society, has overruled Carlisle and Cumberland Banking Co. v. Bragg, and has held that no matter what class of document would exclude the defence of "non est factum."