Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)Ranganayakamma & Anr vs K.S. Prakash (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 16 May, 2008
In Ranganayakamma and another Vs. K.S. Pakash AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1218, the execution of power of attorney was sought to be assailed on the ground that it was prepared fraudulently. It was pleaded that defendants therein used to take signatures of plaintiffs on the misrepresentation that the same were required for payment of tax and managing properties. Due to faith, the plaintiffs had in their brothers, they used to sign. The power of attorney was executed by playing a fraud and taking advantage of innocence and ignorance of the sisters. It was executed in the Office of an Advocate and on the basis of said fraudulent misrepresentation, defendants got a deed of partition executed subsequently. Considering the nature of allegations, Court found that the plea of fraud was general in nature and vague. It was alleged that signatures were obtained on several papers on one pretext or other and they have signed in good faith believing the representations made by respondents, which, in fact was a fraudulent representation. However, when such representations were made, what was the nature of representation, who made the representations and what type of representations were made are some of the material fact which were not stated. Similarly the document were signed either in the office of Advocate or before the Sub-Registrar, i.e., at public place and signatures were not obtained on blank papers. That being so, the onus was upon the plaintiffs to show, who had taken advantage and at what point of time, but all these facts were not pleaded. The Court found statement of plaintiffs farfetched and beyond ordinary human conduct. It is in these facts, Court said that in absence of any particulars, having been furnished with respect to fraud and misrepresentation, the documents in question would not be void.
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ramesh B. Desai And Others vs Bipin Vadilal Mehta And Others on 11 July, 2006
"19. Undoubtedly, Order VI Rule 4 CPC requires that complete particulars of fraud shall be stated in the pleadings. The particulars of alleged fraud, which are required to be stated in the plaint, will depend upon the facts of each particular case and no abstract principle can be laid down in this regard. Where some transaction of money takes place to which 'A', 'B' and 'C' are parties and payment is made by cheques, in normal circumstances a third party 'X' may not get knowledge of the said transaction unless he is informed about it by someone who has knowledge of the transaction or he gets an opportunity to see the accounts of the concerned parties in the Bank. In such a case an assertion by 'X' that he got no knowledge of the transaction when it took place and that he came to know about it subsequently through some proceedings in court cannot be said to be insufficient pleading for the purpose of Order VI Rule 4 CPC. In such a case 'X' can only plead that he got no knowledge of the transaction and nothing more. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court was in error in holding that there was no proper pleading of fraud."
Indian Bank vs M/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996
20. Thus forgery is false making of any written document for the purpose of fraud or deceit. Its definition has been quoted with approval in Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550 (Paras 26 and 27). The Apex Court in para 28 has said that fraud is an essential ingredient of forgery. It further held:
Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad & Ors vs Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead)Thr.Lrs. & ... on 20 January, 2005
24. Considering Order 6 Rule 4 CPC in Sangramsing P. Gaekwad and others Vs. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad and others (2005) 11 SCC 314, the Court said that the plaintiff is bound to give particulars of the case where he relies on misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust etc. The particulars of alleged fraud, which are required to be stated in the plaint, will depend upon the facts of each particular case and there cannot be a thumb rule.
Bishundeo Narain And Another vs Seogeni Rai And Jagernath on 4 May, 1951
In Bishundeo Narain and another Vs. Seogeni Rai and others AIR 1951 SC 280, the Court said that in case of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the party's pleadings must set forth full particulars. The case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence.