BHAGI Vs. SODAGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This question which arises in this appeal relates to the validity of a gift of 94 kanals and 8 marlas of agricultural land by an old widow of about 85 made in favour of a tenant who is otherwise a stranger to the donor.

(2.) The gift was challenged at the instance of the daughters and daughters sons of the donor who made the gift on 6th of August, 1956, of her entire land in favour of Mohinder Singh, defendant No. 2, who is a minor son of her tenant Sodagar Singh, dependent No. 1. Mst. Lachhmi died on 13th of January, 1959. The trial Judge decreed the suit holding the gift to have been executed in the exercise of undue influence. On appeal, the decree was set aside principally on the ground that no specific plea of undue influence had been raised in the pleadings and no issue to that effect had been framed. The plaintiffs feeling aggrieved have come in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) In the plaint, it was stated that Mst. Lachhmi was a simple minded widow of over 80 years of age and fraud, deceit and misrepresentation had been practised on her by Sodagar Singh when the gift was made in favour of his son. It was also stated that she was half blind and did not possess sound disposing mind. The gift was challenged on ground of these infirmities. The words 'undue influence' may not have been used in the plaint but there can be no manner of doubt that its tenure indicated in no uncertain terms that Sodagar Singh being a tenant exercised a dominant influence on Mst. Lachhmi who was persuaded to execute the deed of gift. Apparently, there is no consideration for this alienation and no attempt has been made on the part of the defendants to justify it on that score. The defendants are no relations of the donor. Sodagar Singh was clearly in a position to dominate the will of Mst. Lachhmi and the gift resulted in an unfair advantage being obtained for his son. The law applicable in such cases has been very succinctly described by Lord Justice Lindly in Allcard V. Skinner, 36 Chancery Division Page 145. At page 183, it was thus observed :-