Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)Article 91 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 95 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 59 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ningawwa vs Byrappa & 3 Ors on 17 January, 1968
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also had an occasion to
consider the Article-59 (erstwhile Article-91) in the case of Ningawwa Vs
Byrappa & 3 Ors7. In this case, a wife had executed a gift deed transferring
certain plots to her husband. Subsequently, she filed a suit for setting aside
the deed of gift. The case of the wife, was that she had been told that she was
executing a deed of gift in relation to two plots while other properties apart
from the two plots, were also included in the deed of gift. The matter reached
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India considered not only the question of limitation, but also the question of
whether a document executed, under undue influence of fraud would be a
void document or avoidable document. The relevant passage in the said
judgment as follows:-
Article 114 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Pandit Someshwar Dutt vs Pandit Tirbhawan Dutt on 21 March, 1934
28. Article 59 provides for a period of three years for setting aside or
cancelling an instrument. This three years period would commence from the
date on which the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the said instrument
cancelled or set aside first become known to the plaintiff. Article-59 (erstwhile
Article-91) came to be considered by the Privy Council in the case of
Someshwar Dutt Vs. Tirbhawan Dutt & Ors6. In this case, the younger brother
had executed a deed of gift, in favour of the elder brother conveying his entire
property to the elder brother. Thereafter, the younger brother, initiated
litigation, for setting aside the deed of gift executed by the younger brother.
One of the issues that came up for consideration, right from the stage of trial
was the question of limitation. The suit was primarily filed on the ground of
fraudulent misrepresentation and the weakness of mind of the younger
brother, apart from the commanding position of the elder brother on the
younger brother, which made the fraud feasible. The Trial Court dismissed the
suit on the ground that the younger brother could not prove the allegations of
misrepresentation etc. However, the Appellate Court had held that a case, of
undue influence, was established and accepted the case of the younger
brother. The Privy Council, in the appeal before it, had held that no case, on
merits, had been made out by the younger brother. Apart from this, the Privy
Council had also went into the question of limitation and held as follows:-
Ladli Parshad And Anr. vs Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. on 1 October, 1953
20. The question of who would have to demonstrate, the presence or
absence of such undue influence, had come up before the Courts. Both the
trial court and the appellate court held that the burden would lie upon the
11
RRR,J
S.A.No.611 of 2006 & batch
person who is said to have been in a position of dominance over the transferor
of the property. For this purpose, the trial court had relied upon the Judgments
of the High Court at Madras in the case of S. Rathnam Naidu & Anr Vs.
Kanni Ammal & Ors1and in the case of Mannankatti Ammal Vs. Vaiyapri
Udayar2, the Judgment of the High Court at Calcutta in the case of Wajid
Khan Vs. Ewas Ali Khan3, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Ladli Parshad Vs. Karnkak Distillery Company4, the
Judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Daya Shankar Vs.
Smt. Bachi & Ors5.
Daya Shankar vs Smt. Bachi And Ors. on 4 January, 1980
20. The question of who would have to demonstrate, the presence or
absence of such undue influence, had come up before the Courts. Both the
trial court and the appellate court held that the burden would lie upon the
11
RRR,J
S.A.No.611 of 2006 & batch
person who is said to have been in a position of dominance over the transferor
of the property. For this purpose, the trial court had relied upon the Judgments
of the High Court at Madras in the case of S. Rathnam Naidu & Anr Vs.
Kanni Ammal & Ors1and in the case of Mannankatti Ammal Vs. Vaiyapri
Udayar2, the Judgment of the High Court at Calcutta in the case of Wajid
Khan Vs. Ewas Ali Khan3, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Ladli Parshad Vs. Karnkak Distillery Company4, the
Judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Daya Shankar Vs.
Smt. Bachi & Ors5.