TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purported to have been executed on 11.7.1970 by the executant. A suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by Pratima Maity, daughter of Pane Charan Kul, son of Dasarathi Kul. The suit property originally belonged to Dasarathi Kul who died in the year 1972. His Son Phani Charan Kul died in the year 1979. Averments in the plaint were to the effect that on coming to know from the office of the Block Land Reforms Officer that defendant No. 1 - Krishna Mohan Kul (appellant No. 1 in the present appeal) had filed a registered deed of settlement dated 11.7.1970 it was necessary to get the deed declared to be void and invalid as the same was a forged document. There was no existence of the witnesses whose names appeared in the said d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the courts below are perverse in appreciating the said deed of settlement. High Court took the view that the approach of both the trial Court and the first Appellate Court was erroneous. The following factual aspects were considered relevant. Plaintiffs produced certified copy of the deed, while defendants produced the original one. It was a deed of settlement where Dasu Charan Kul was described as the donor, and curiously the donor and two others namely Nani Charan Kul and his minor son Jagdish Kul. The L.T.I, was identified by one Hriday Krishna Das. The deed was typed by one N.R. Dutta and in the column meant for the names of witnesses, names of scribe Hriday Krishna Das along with two others namely Nantu Bihari Ray and P.K. Mait ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of execution of the deed. That being so, the High Court should not have interfered with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court. In response, learned counsel for the respondents (plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3) submitted that the High Court has rightly interfered with the lower Court's orders as the conclusions were totally on misreading of the provisions of law. The High Court rightly noticed that onus was wrongly placed on the plaintiffs to prove validity or otherwise of the deed of settlement. We shall first deal with the question relating to jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. Reference was made by learned counsel for the appellants to Chandr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted in Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (dead) by Lrs. v. Nanilal Harakchand Shah (dead) and Ors., [2002] 6 SCC 404 if the judgments of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court are based on mis-interpretation of the documentary evidence or consideration of inadmissible evidence or ignoring material evidence or on a finding of fact has ignored admissions or concession made by witnesses or parties, the High Court can interfere in appeal. In Neelakantan and Ors. v. Mallika Begum, [2002] 2 SCC 440 it was held that findings of fact recorded must be set aside where the finding has no basis in any legal evidence on record or is based on a misreading of evidence or suffers from any legal infirmity which materially prejudices the case of one of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in a position of active confidence. A person standing in a fiduciary relation to another has a duty to protect the interest given to his care and the Court watches with zealously all transactions between such persons so that the protector may not use his influence or the confidence to his advantage. When the party complaining shows such relation, the law presumes everything against the transaction and the onus is cast upon the person holding the position of confidence or trust to show that the transaction is perfectly fair and reasonable, that no advantage has been taken of his position. This principle has been engrained in Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'). The rule here laid down is in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instrument, the burden of proof is thrown upon the person receiving the benefit and he is under the necessity of showing that the transaction is fair and honest. In judging of the validity of transactions between persons standing in a confidential relation to each other, it is very material to see whether the person conferring a benefit on the other had competent and independent advice. The age or capacity of the person conferring the benefit and the nature of the benefit are of very great importance in such cases. It is always obligatory for the donor/beneficiary under a document to prove due execution of the document in accordance with law, even de hors the reasonableness or otherwise of the transaction, to avail of the benefit or claim r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
