Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.70 seconds)The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Afsar Sheikh And Anr vs Soleman Bibi And Ors on 6 November, 1975
(21) The plaintiff has specifically pleaded fraud and undue influence in
the plaint. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon
a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Afsan Sheikh and
Another Vs. Soleman Bibi and Others reported in 1976 [2] SCC
142 wherein, it is held as follows:-
Section 16 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Raja Ram vs Jai Prakash Singh on 11 September, 2019
(22) Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Raja Ram Vs. Jai Prakash Singh
and Others reported in 2019 [8] SCC 701, wherein it is held that in
cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, full particulars must
be set forth in pleadings and vague or general plea can never serve
this purpose. It is also held that party pleading must be required to
plead precise nature of influence exercised, manner of use of
influence. It is also reiterated that onus would shift on to defendant
only after plaintiff establishes a prima facie case. In this case, the
brother of plaintiff got a Sale Deed from father and the sale was
challenged on the ground of undue influence. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that the pleading is not sufficient to
satisfy the requirements and that the initial burden is discharged.
Shrimati And Ors. vs Sudhakar R. Bhatkar And Ors. on 4 March, 1997
(23) The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of the Bombay
High Court in the case of Shrimati and Others Vs. Sudhakar
R.Bhatkar and Others, reported in AIR 1988 Bom 122, it is seen
that the Court has specifically pointed out that when the transaction
appears to be unconscionable, the burden of proving otherwise is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18
AS.No.33/2012
on the beneficiary of transaction. All the three judgments are
distinguishable on facts. In this case, there is specific pleading that
the plaintiff an utter stranger to the family, gained acquaintance
with the settlor and it is admitted by the 1st defendant that he was
helping the settlor in domestic needs. When the settlement is an
unnatural disposition, the burden lies on the 1st defendant/appellant
and he has failed to discharge his burden as found by this Court..
(24) The term 'undue influence' is defined under Section 16 of Indian
Contract Act, 1872. Section 16 reads as under:-
1