In a recent judgment, Supreme Court has explained the necessity of voluntariness and animus in executing the gift deed. As per the judgment, there are several circumstances and supporting facts relied on by the trial court and first appellate court on the absence of voluntariness and animus and thus, the gift deed was held to be an invalid and spurious document.
The Court has also explained, what facts and circumstances have to be established to prove the execution of a document depending on the pleas put forward. Hon’ble Apex Court has held that ordinarily, no one is expected to sign or execute a document without knowing its contents, but if it is pleaded that the party executing the document did not know the contents thereof then it may, in certain circumstances, be necessary for the party seeking to prove the document to place material before the court to satisfy it that the party who executed the document had the knowledge of its contents. Decision and determination of the fact in issue is by examination of the oral evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue.
When a person obtains any benefit from another, the court would call upon the person who wishes to maintain the right to gift to discharge the burden of proving that he exerted no influence for the purpose of obtaining the document. Corollary to this principle finds recognition in sub-section (3) to Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which relates to pardanashin ladies.
The courts can apply this principle to old, illiterate, ailing, or infirm persons who may be unable to comprehend the nature of the document or contents thereof. Equally, one who bargains in the matter of advantage with a person who places confidence in him is bound to show that a proper and reasonable use has been made of that confidence. The burden of establishing perfect fairness, adequacy, and equity is cast upon the person in whom the confidence has been reposed. Therefore, in cases of fiduciary relationships when the validity of the transaction is in question, it is relevant to see whether the person conferring the benefit on the other had competent and independent advice.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 364 OF 2022
KESHAV AND OTHERS ….. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GIAN CHAND AND ANOTHER ….. RESPONDENT(S)
Judgments referred:
1 Rao Saheb v. Rangnath Gopalrao Kawathekar (Dead By LRs) and Others, (1972) 4 SCC 181.
2 Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul and Anr. v. Pratima Maity and Ors., (2004) 9 SCC 468.
3. Ladli Parshad Jaiswal v. The Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., Karnal and Others, AIR 1963 SC 1279; and Bellachi (D) by LRs. v. Pakeeran, (2009) 12 SCC 95.
4 See Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 676; Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545.