- Dularia Devi vs Janardan Singh and Ors
- Bench: Justice T.K. Thommen and Justice L.M. Sharma
Issue:
- Whether the suit was maintainable under the Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 or not?
- Whether a contract entered upon under the influence of fraud is a void or voidable contract?
Facts:
- The Appellant-plaintiff is an illiterate person.
- The Appellant-plaintiff wanted to gift her entire property to her daughter and entrusted the work to transfer the property to the defendants (Defendant No. 3 and 4).
- The Respondent-defendant agreed to make arrangements for the transfer of property.
- The Respondent-defendant took the Appellant to the Sub-Registrar’s Office and the Appellant paid for all the expenses.
- The Appellant was made to put her thumb impression on two deeds. As the appellant was illiterate, she was made to believe that the deed pertains to gift deed but in reality fraud was committed by the respondent as they made her sign two deeds, one relating to gift in favour of her daughter and the other a sale deed in favour of the respondent.
- The Sub Registrar, typist in his office and the respondent all conspired and committed fraud.
- Later, the respondents told her that she had executed a sale deed in their favour.
- Then, the appellant filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed.
- The trial court decreed the suit and first appellate court confirmed it.
- Setting aside the decree, the High Court held that the plaintiff was deceived as she was not aware of the character of the deed and the deed is therefore, void. The suit was barred under section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The consolidation proceedings were pending at the time when suit was filed.
Argument raised by Appellant:
The Appellant contended that it is per se a case of documents signed by fraud, the transaction stands voidable, but not void and therefore the suit filed by her to set aside the suit was rightly filed in the court of law and the bar of section 49 was not attract- ed. The appellant contended that the suit was maintainable and the High Court was wrong in its decision.
Argument raised by Respondent:
The respondents contended that rightly that two principles laid down in Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh & Ors., [1974] 1 SCR 339 and Ningawwa v. Byrappa & 3 Ors., [1968] 2 SCR 797i.e. the object of Section 49 of the Act was to remove from the jurisdiction of any civil court or revenue court all disputes which could be decided by the competent authority under the Act during the consolidation proceedings; and the question as to the validity of sale deeds or gift deeds shall be filed before the statutory authority.
Judgment:
The court held that by going into the facts of the case it is clear that the appellant was made to sign the deeds by fraud. She believed that she was signing the gift deed. The Court was of the view that HC in its view, rightly held that the remedy of the plaintiff lies in the proceedings pending before the consolidation authorities and it is open to the parties to approach them for appropriate relief. The appeal was dismissed on merits.
The Court put emphasis on the Ningawwa v. Byrappa & 3 Ors.[1968] 2 SCR 797 judgment and referred to the well-established principle that a contract or other transaction induced or tendered by fraud is not void, but only voidable at the option of the party defraud- ed. The transaction remains valid until it was avoided.
