Raja Ram Vs. Jai Prakash Singh and Others
[Civil Appeal Nos. 2896 of 2009]
Order Dated : SEPTEMBER 11, 2019.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने बुजुर्ग पैरंट्स की देखभाल करनेवाले शख्स को प्रॉपर्टी का बड़ा हिस्सा दिए जाने के संबंध में महत्वपूर्ण फैसला दिया। कोर्ट ने माना कि बुजुर्ग देखभाल करनेवाली संतान (केयरिंग चिल्ड्रन) को दूसरे भाई-बहनों की तुलना में संपत्ति का बड़ा हिस्सा दे सकती है। इसे बुजुर्ग अवस्था का फायदा उठाकर संपत्ति अपने नाम कराने का मामला नहीं माना जाएगा।
भाइयों के बीच में संपत्ति को लेकर चल रहे एक विवाद पर फैसला देते हुए जस्टिस नवीन सिन्हा और जस्टिस इंदिरा बनर्जी ने यह महत्वपूर्ण फैसला दिया। जजों की बेंच ने अपने फैसले में कहा कि बिना किसी महत्वपूर्ण साक्ष्य के इस निष्कर्ष (पैरंट्स की उम्र का फायदा उठाकर संपत्ति अपने नाम कराना) पर पहुंचना सही नहीं होगा और इससे गलत संदेश जा सकता है। ऐसी संतान जो माता-पिता के प्रति अपेक्षाकृत कम दायित्वों का निर्वाह करती है, उनकी तुलना में ज्यादा जिम्मेदारी निभानेवाली संतान पर ऐसे फैसलों से विपरीत प्रभाव पड़ेगा।
संपत्ति के बंटवारे को लेकर पिछले 5 दशक से पिता की मौत के एक साल बाद से ही भाइयों के बीच संपत्ति के बंटवारे को लेकर विवाद चल रहा था। पिता ने अपनी संपत्ति में से बड़ा हिस्सा एक बेटे को दे दिया। दूसरे भाई ने इसे पिता पर बुजुर्ग अवस्था में प्रभाव डालकर संपत्ति अपने नाम करवाने का आरोप लगाते हुए केस दर्ज किया था। ट्रायल कोर्ट और हाई कोर्ट ने भी इस दावे को खारिज कर दिया। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने भी निचली अदालत के फैसले को ही मान्य ठहराया।
Hon’ble Court Held : We are of the considered opinion, in the changing times and social mores, that to straightway infer undue influence merely because a sibling was looking after the family elder, is an extreme proposition which cannot be countenanced in absence of sufficient and adequate evidence. Any other interpretation by inferring a reverse burden of proof straightway, on those who were taking care of the elders, as having exercised undue influence can lead to very undesirable consequences. It may not necessarily lead to neglect, but can certainly create doubt and apprehensions leading to lack of full and proper care under the fear of allegations with regard to exercise of undue influence. Law and life run together. If certain members of the family are looking after the elderly and others by choice or by compulsion of vocation are unable to do so, there is bound to be more affinity between the elder members of the family with those who are looking after them day to day.
Hon’ble Court observed : “We turn next to the questions of undue influence and coercion. Now it is to be observed that these have not been separately pleaded. It is true they may overlap in part in some cases but they are separate and separable categories in law and must be separately pleaded. It is also to be observed that no proper particulars have been furnished. Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion….
In Subhas Chandra (supra), distinguishing between influence and undue influence, it was observed as follows: “It must also be noted that merely because the parties were nearly related to each other no presumption of undue influence can arise. As was pointed out by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Poosathurai v. Kappanna Chettiar and others 47 I.A. p. 1 :” It is a mistake (of which there are a good many traces in these proceedings) to treat undue influence as having been established by a proof of the relations of the parties having been such that the one naturally relied upon the other for advice, and the other was in a position to dominate the will of the first in giving it. Up to that point “influence” alone has been made out. Such influence may be used wisely, judiciously and helpfully. But whether by the law of India or the law of England, more than mere influence must be proved so as to render influence, in the language of the law, “undue”….
In Subhas Chandra (supra), it was further observed that there was no presumption of imposition merely because a donor was old and weak. Mere close relation also was insufficient to presume undue influence, observing as follows: “Before, however, a court is called upon to examine whether undue influence was exercised or not, it must scrutinise the pleadings to find out that such a case has been made out and that full particulars of undue influence have been given as in the case of fraud. See Order 6, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This aspect of the pleading was also given great stress in the case of Ladli Prasad Jaiswal [1964] 1 SCR 270 above referred to. In that case it was observed (at p. 295): “A vague or general plea can never serve this purpose; the party pleading must therefore be required to plead the precise nature of the influence exercised, the manner of use of the influence, and the unfair advantage obtained by the other.”
