DHARAM KAUR Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, Gurdev Chand, filed a suit for possession and for recovery of Rs. 1800/ - as mesne profits inter alia contending, that the property in dispute, about 2 1/2 Marlas Taur and shop, was sold on 20 -04 -1968 for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/ -, Rs. 2000/ - were paid before the Registrar at the time of registration and Rs. 1000/ - was paid as advance at the time of agreement of sale.

(2.) THE defendant controverted the said allegations, denied the execution of the sale deed, receipt of the money, and further averred that the transaction was fraudulent. It was further stated that the agreement for sale was due to the undue influence of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff was a Municipal Commissioner, held Akhara, used to do astrology work and used to perform spiritual rituals and defendant was under his spiritual influence. Question of limitation, estoppel and various other objections were raised.

(3.) IN this regular second appeal, the only question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sale transaction is on account of the under influence exercised by the plaintiff -respondent upon Harbhajan Singh, deceased. Thus, it is a void transaction and cannot be given effect to. In order to support his contention, the learned counsel argues that the Courts below have not taken into consideration section 16 of the Contract Act wherein it is provided that the moment the defendant is able to show that the transaction is unconscionable and the plaintiff was in a dominant position to influence the defendant, the onus shifts and then it is for the plaintiff to show that the transaction was for a consideration and it was independent of any undue influence. The learned counsel relies upon Mt. Anupa Bai v. Bhagwant Singh : A.I.R. 1938 Nag. 470 and 1 Chancery Division 145 Chancery Division 145.