BENCH: Mahmood, JJ
FACTS:
- There was a gift deed executed by the Appellant for the Respondent, Umadat Pande, a Brahmin who was the spiritual guru of the Appellant
- The Respondent had allegedly influenced the Appellant to take his property in a gift deed where he promised to secure his benefits in the next world
- The Appellant had filed a complaint against the Respondent seeking the cancellation of the deed.
ISSUE:
- Whether the transaction set up by the Respondent can be enforced and recognized
APPELLANT’s CONTENTIONS:
- That the deed executed between the Appellant and the Respondent is spurious and fictitious
- That the deed was not executed willingly and voluntarily.
JUDGMENT:
Where a fiduciary or quasi fiduciary relationship has been established, the burden of sustaining the transaction is set upon the party which is going to benefit from it to show that the transaction was of an unobjectionable nature as per s111 of the Evidence Act. The Court allowed the appeal setting aside the gift deed which lacked free consent and the Appellant was allowed to all the costs through the court.
