M. RANGASAMYversusRENGAMMAL AND ORS.

A                                M. RANGASAMY
                                       v.
                             .RENGAMMAL AND ORS.

                                  AUGUST 25, 2003

B                   [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]


           Succession Act, 1925--Section 63(c)-Transfer of Property Act, 1882-
     Section 3-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 68-Gift-lnfavour of grand son by
C    grandmother-By Settlement Deeds-Challenged alleging it to have been
     executed under undue influence-Burden to prove undue influence pleaded
     to be on the executant being in fiduciary relationship-Suit decreed-First
     Appellate Court held that the deeds did not suffer from the vices-High Court
     held the deeds not proved discarding evidence of attesting witnesses to the
     deeds for want of evidence in terms of Section 63(c)-On appeal held: Non
D    compliance of Section 63(c) does not effect the execution of the deeds as the
     same are in the nature of gift deeds and it is not a case of proof of will-
     Testimony of attesting witnesses were discarded on wrong ground

            Undue influence-For execution of deed-Presumption of-When
     arises-Merely because parties were nearly related and because donor was
E    old or of weak character, no presumption of undue influence can arise-
     Generally the relations of solicitor and client, trustee and cestul que trust,
     spiritual adviser and devotee, medical attendant and patient, parent and
     child are those in which such a presumption arises-Evidence Act, 1872-
     Section 114.                                               •
F         Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 100-Second appeal-
     Reappreciation of evidence under permissibility of-Held:- not permissible.

           The suit property exclusively belonged to 'N'.After her death appellant-
     defendant, her grandson asserted exclusive right to the suit property.
G    Respondent-plaintiffs, the daughters of 'N' sent a notice to the appellant
     requiring to restrain him from unlawful interference in the enjoyment of the
     properties. According to them, their mother had duly executed a registered
     Will whereunder she bequeathed in their favour properties in Schedule A.
     Schedule B properties in respect of which she died intestate,were inherited
     by them to the extent of 3/4th share together and I/4th undivided share by
II                                        948
                     M. RANGASAMY v. RENGAMMAL                               949
defendant No.I. In reply to the notice, appellant denied their title and asserted   A
his exclusive title over Schedule A and B properties under two settlement
deeds (Exhibits B-6 and B-7) executed in his favour by 'N'. Respondents filed
suit for declaration that Schedule' A' properties belonged exclusively to them
and further sought partition of Schedule B properties into four equal shares.
Their case was that first defendant exercising dominating influence over his
grandmother, got the settlement deeds executed exploiting her old age, dim          B
eye-sight and mental condition; and that since he had a fiduciary relationship
with his grandmother, the burden to establish absence of undue influence in
executing the settlement deed was on him.

      Trial Court decreed the suit holding that Exhibits B-6 and B-7 which C
were in the nature of gift deeds were not valid documents and the same were
brought into existence by fraud, mis-representation and undue influence. In
appeal, first appellate court set aside the decree of trial court holding that
the Exhibits were not vitiated by any invalid circumstance as alleged in the
plaint, as 'N' was physically healthy and sound disposing mind when she
executed the exhibits and that she voluntarily executed the said documents D
with full knowledge of the nature and purport of the document she was
executing. High Court reappreciated the evidence and allowed the second appeal
holding that the deeds have not been proved; that the expression 'attested' is
not defined in Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and that Section 63(c) oflndian
Succession Act, 1925 is applicable; and the testimony of two attesting E
witnesses were liable to be rejected for want of evidence in terms of Section
63 of Succession Act. Hence the present aj)peal.

      Allowing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1. The findings have been correctly recorded by the first               F
Appellate Court. There is no ground on the basis whereof the High Court
could reappreciate evidence and reverse the said findings while deciding a
second appeal. Reappreciating evidence is not permissible while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. (955-C; 953-A-q

      2. Section 63(c) of the Succession Act on the basis whereof the High G
Court has discarded the testimony of attesting witnesses of Exhibits B-6 and
B-7 on the ground that the ingredients of the said Section have not been spoken
by the attestators has no applicability. It is not a case of proof of will. Exhibits
B-6 and B-7 are in the nature of gift deeds. High Court, while rightly holding
that Exhibits B-6 and 8-7 are in the nature of gift deeds, committed glaring
                                                                                    H
    950                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   illegality in coming to the conclusion that the said documents have not been
    proved for want of evidence in terms of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act.
    High Court is not correct in observing that the expression 'attested' is not
    defined in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 3 of the Transfer of
    Property Act defines the same. [953-E, Fl

B          3. Section 68 of Evidence Act deals with proof of execution of document
    required by law to be attested. Proviso to Section 68, inte~ alia, provides that
    it is necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any
    document unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been
    executed is specifically denied. The two attesting witnesses have been examined
C   by the appellant. Their testimony has been ignored for the reasons which are
    wholly untenable. Further, a perusal of the plaint shows that the execution of
    Exhibits B-6 and 8-7 has, in fact, not been disputed by the plaintiffs. The case
    set up by them is that the first defendant, exercising dominating influence
    over the grandmother, got the two settlement deeds executed from her
    exploiting her old age, dim eye-sight and mental condition.
D                                                              (953-G, H; 954-A, BJ

          4. High Court, in view of the relationship of the appellant wi.th his
    grandmother, presumed undue influence and held that the documents Exhibits
    8-6 and 8-7 were executed in view thereof in favour of the appellant. The
    approach of High Court cannot be sustained. If the transaction appears to be
E   unconscionable, then the burden of proving that the contract was not induced
    by undue influence lies upon the person who is in a position to dominate the
    will of the other. Merely because the parties were nearly related to each other
    or merely because the donor was old or of weak character, no presumption of
    undue influence can arise. Generally speaking the relations of solicitor and
F   client, trustee and cestul que trust, spiritual adviser and devotee, medical
    attendant and patient, parent and child are those in which such a presumption
    arises. High Court presumed undue influence merely on account of near
    relationship. The presumption made by the High Court on the basis of
    relationship was not warranted by law. (955-D, F-H]

G         Subhas Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prasad Das Mushib and Ors.
    AIR (1987) SC 868, referred to.

          CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5199of1997.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.97 of the Madras High Court
H in S.A.No.1300of1983.
                 M. RANGASAMYv. RENGAMMAL [SABHARWAL, J.]                          951
           Dr. A. Francis Julian, Sumit Kumar for M/s. Arputham and Aruna & Co.,           A
     for the Appellant.

           C. Jayaraj and Ms. V. Mohana for the Respondents.

           The Judgment of the Collrt was delivered by
                                                                                           B
           Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. Appellant is defendant No. I in the suit out of
     which the appeal has arisen. Three sisters were plaintiffs in the suit. The suit
"·
     properties originally belonged to Nanjammal @ Kuttiammal, mother of the
     three plaintiffs and father of defendant No. I who was brothe; of three plaintiffs.
     Father of defendant No. I pre-deceased his mother Nanjammal. The husband
     of Nanjammal, Le., father of the plaintiffs and grandfather of defendant No. I        C·
     also pre-deceased his wife. Nanjammal died on I I th September, I 979 at an old
     age.

            According to the plaintiffs, their mother in sound disposing mind duly
     executed on 20th August, 1966 a registered will whereunder she bequeathed
     in their favour properties described in Schedule A to the plaint. Schedule B D,
     properties also belonged absolutely to Nanjammal which, according to the
     allegations in the plaint, were inherited to the extent of 3/4th share by the
     three plaintiffs together and I/4th undivided share by defendant No. I according
     to law of succession Nanjammal having died intestate in respect of the said
     properties. After death ofNanjammal, the appellant began to assert his exclusive E
     title to suit properties as a result whereof the plaintiffs sent a notice to him
     requiring him to restrain from unlawful interference in the enjoyment of the
     properties. In reply to the notice, the appellant denied the title of the plaintiffs
     to Schedule A and B properties and asserted his exclusive title under two
     settlement deeds dated 27th October, 1976 alleged to have been executed in
     his favour by Nanjammal. The plaintiff on receipt of the reply notice obtained F
     copies of the said deeds and then only became aware about the said deeds
     which, it was claimed, were not validly executed. Under these circumstances,
     the plaintiffs who are respondents before us sought a declaration that plaint
     A Schedule properties belong exclusively to thenir and sought injunction
     restraining the appellant/first defendant from interfering and disturbing the G
     plaintiffs' exclusive possession and enjoyment of those properties through
     their tenant and further sought partition of Schedule B properties into 4 equal
     shares so as to allot three shares to the plaintiffs altogether and one share
     to defendant No. I.

           The trial court held that the settlement deeds dated 27th October, 1976         H
    952                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A which were in the nature of gift deeds in favour of the first defendant were
    not valid documents and the said deeds were brought into existence by fraud,
    misrepresentation and undue influence. The suit was, therefore, decreed.

           The appeal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree
    of the trial court was, however, allowed by the Additional District Judge and
B   setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, the suit was dismissed
    with costs in favour of the appellant both of the first appeal and also of the
    suit. It was held that Exhibits B-6 and B-7 were validly and voluntarily
    executed with full knowledge of contents thereof and with intention to gift
    the properties in favour of the appellant.
c         In the second appeal that was preferred by the plaintiffs, the High Court
    has held that the aforesaid deeds have not been proved and are void for all
    purposes. Resultantly, setting aside the judgment of the lower appellate court,
    the judgment and decree of the trial court has been restored. Under these
    circumstances, the original first defendant has preferred this appeal.
D
          The High Court has come to the conclusion that ~xhibits B-6 and B-7
    are not valid documents for lack of evidence in proof thereof; absence of
    knowledge of Nanjammal in respect of contents of documents and doubts
    about the execution thereof, and, the burden being on the appellant to prove
    the validity of the documents which he has failed to discharge.
E
           For reaching the aforesaid conclusion, the High Court has said that the
    expression 'attested' is not defined in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and
    that Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, 'the Succession
    Act) is applicable which has noi been complied. The High Court has also
    observed that under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a document
F   which requires attestation shall not be used as evidence until one attestator
    at least is examined and proves execution thereof but the testimony of the two
    attesting witnesses DW2 and DW3 has been discarded by the High Court on
    the ground that their testimony does not speak anything about compliance
    of the ingredients of Section 63 of the Succession Act. Thus, the High Court
G   has concluded that although the attestators DW2 and DW3 were examined
    but the attestation of Exhibits B-6 and B-7 has not been proved and the
    question of undue influence or fraud, even if pleaded, will come into play only
    when execution of the document is properly proved in which attempt the
    appellant has miserably failed. Further, on reappreciation of evidence, the
    testimony of Sub-Registrar (DW6) who had registered the two documents
H   was also discarded holding that the registration was done in a perfunctory
            M. RANGASAMY v. RENGAMMAL [SABHARWAL, J.]                      953
manner holding that at the time of registration, the executant did not have       A
proper eye-sight nor was she in a position to hear properly.

       We are unable to sustain the judgment of the High Court on any of the
aforesaid count. Besides reappreciating evidence which is not permissible
while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
on all other aforesaid counts also the High Court has committed glaring           B
illegalities.

       Firstly, the High Court is not correct in observing that the expression
'attested' is not defined in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 3 of
the Transfer of Property Act defines the expression 'attested'. It reads :
                                                                                  c
        " 'attested', in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed
        always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of
        whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument,
        or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence
        and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the D
        executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of
        the signature of such other person, and each Of whom has signed the
        instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary
        that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the
        same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary."
                                                                                  E
       Secondly, Section 63(c) of the Succession Act on the basis whereof the
High Court has discarded the testimony of attesting witnesses of Exhibits B-
6 and B-7 on the ground that the ingredients of the said section have not
been spoken by the attestators (DW2 and DW3), has no applicability. It is
not a case of proof of will. Exhibits B-6 and B-7 are in the nature of gift deeds.
The High Court, while rightly holding that the said documents are in the F
nature of gift deeds, committed glaring illegality in coming to the conclusion
that the said documents have not been proved for want of evidence in terms
of Section 63(3) of the Succession Act. It is because of this illegality that the
High Court holds that the question of undue influence or fraud, even if
pleaded by the plaintiffs, will come into play only if execution of the documents G
is properly proved and since the appellant has failed miserably to prove those
documents, the question of undue influence or fraud becomes insignificant.

      Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with proof of execution of
document required by law to be attested. Proviso to Section 68, inter alia,
provides that it is necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the H
    954                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003} SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A execution of any document unless its execution by .the person by whom it
    purports to have been executed is specifically denied. The· two attesting
    witnesses, as aforesaid, have been examined by the appellant. Their testimony
    has been ignored for the reasons which are wholly untenable. Further, a
    perusai of the plaint shows that the execution cif Exhibits B-6 and B-7 has,        t
    in fact, not been disputed by the. plaintiffs. The case set up by them is that
B   the first defendant, exercising dominating influence over his grandmother, got
    the two settlement deeds executed from her exploiting her old age, dim eye-
    sight and mental condition. It has been further pleaded that first defendant
    had a fiducfary relationship with his gran'dmother and, therefore, though
    normally it would be for ·a person who pleads undue influence to establish
C   the said fact, but in view of this relationship, it is for the first defendant to
    prove that the gift deeds were the result of free exercise of independent will
    by the executant.

         It stands proved and has. also not been disputed that the grandmother
   was living with her grandson, i.e., the appellant since 1971. The plaintiffs were
D· marri~d daughters, settled and li~ing separately. They had not met the mother
   for the last 5-6 years before her death: These aspects. have ·not been properly
   appreciated by the High Court. '               ·          ·

         Thirdly, 'the first appellate court, on consideration of the evidence on
  record, came ·to the coriclusio~ that Exhibits B~6 and B-7 were n"ot vitiated by
E any invalid. circumstance as alleged_ in the plaint and the appellant was
  entitled to Schedule A and B properties abso!utely under those .documents.
  The first appellate court has also noticed that Exhibits B-6 and B-7 wer~ not
  only deeds exec.u~ed by grandmother in favour of the appellant for the first
  time. as previousiy too she had. e;xecuted doc~ments in respect of other
F properties in his f1;\vour. Th~, said do~.u.ments have. been detailed in the.
  judgment of th~ first app~llate ~ourt. Regarding the la~k of proper eye-sight,
  hearing and stage of se!lility ~nd not been. in a position to move about freely,
  the .first appe!lat~ court, on examinatio11 of the averments in the plaint, has
  concluded that it. does not contain any details as to the acts of frauds or
  undue influence committed by .the appella~t _in the 'matter of execution of the
G settlerpent of deeds. The fi~st ·appellate court has further noticecj that .PW 1,
  the first plaintiff, has not said anything about fraud in her deposition; there
  is no allegation that. the ~ppellant represented those documents to be one
  contrary to what the same were and, in fact, in the plaint it is admitted that
  since 1971 Nanjammal was living with the appellant who alone .was looking
H after her. The settlement deeds had been .executed nearly three years before ~
               M. RANGASAMYv. RENGAMMAL (SABHARWAL, J.]                        955
    h.er death. The plaintiffs had no contact with their mother. They had not A
    visited her. They learnt about the settlement deeds and obtained copies
    thereof on receipt of reply notice from the appellant as noticed hereinbefore
    and thereafter obtained the copies from the office of the Sub-Registrar. The
•   first appellate court also referred to the testimony of the Sub-Registrar (DW6)
    and held that he was satisfied about the good health and sound disposing B
    mind ofNanjammal. The first appellate court has also referred to the fact of
    Nanjammal having attended a family function where she had gone alone and
    the reliance was placed on the photographs taken at the said function which
    events had taken place about an year after the execution of Exhibits B-6 and
     B-7. On consideration of the evidence on record, the first appellate court
    concluded that Nanjammal was physically healthy and in a sound disposing C
    mind when she executed Exhibits B-6 and B-7 and that she voluntarily executed
    the said documents with full knowledge of the nature and purport of the
    documents she was executing. These findings, in our view, have been correctly
    recorded by the first appellate court. Be that as it may, we see no ground on
    the basis whereof the High Court could reappreciate evidence and reverse the
     said findings while deciding a second appeal.                                  D
          Further, the High Court, in view of the relationship of the appellant with
    his grandmother, presumed undue influence and held that the documents
    Exhibits B-6 and B-7 were executed in view thereof in favour of the appellant.
    We are unable to sustain the approach of the High Court.
                                                                                       E
           In Subhas Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prasad Das Mushib and
    Ors., AIR (1967) SC 868, this Court hdd that the Court trying the case of
    undue influence must consider two things to start with, namely, (1) are the
    relations between the donor and the donee such that the donee is in a
    position to dominate the will of the donor, and (2) has the donee used that F
    position to obtain an unfair advantage over the donor? Upon the determination
    of these two issues a third point emerges, which is that of the onus probandi.
    If the transaction appears to be unconscionable, then the burden of proving
    that the contract was not induced by undue influence lies upon the person
    who is in a position to dominate the will of the other. It was further said that
    merely because the parties were nearly related to each other or merely because G
    the donor was old or of weak character, no presumption of undue influence
    can arise. Generally speaking the relations of solicitor and client, trustee and
    cestui que trust, spiritual adviser and devotee, medical attendant and patient,
    parent and child are those in which such a presumption arises. The High
    Court presumed the undue influence merely on account of near relationship. H
    956                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   The presumption made by the High Court on the basis of relationship was
    not warranted by law. The whole approach of the High Court was wrong and
    it cannot be sustained.

          Before parting, we wish to note the level of assistance rendered in the
    matter by learned counsel for the respondents. In reply to submissions of
B   learned counsel for the appellant, one sentence submission was made by
    learned counsel that he adopts what has been said in the impugned judgment '
    by the High Court in favour of his clients and has nothing more to add.

           For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the
C   High Court and allow the appeal. The judgment and decree of the trial court
    is set aside and that of the first appellate court is restored. Resultantly, the
    suit shall stand dismissed. The appellant shall also be entitled to his costs
    throughout.

    K.K.T.                                                        Appeal allowed.