Lingo Bhimrao Naik v Dattatraya Shripad Jamadagni (1937) 39 BOMLR 1233
Facts
- The plaintiff, brought into the world in 1912, was living with Laxmibai, the widow of Bhimrao Naik, to whom the suit property had a place.
- Bhimrao and the plaintiff’s regular granddad were children of two sisters.
- The property comprised of watan and non-watan properties of the estimation of almost a lakh of rupees, the watan property being worth about Rs. 60,000 and the non-watan about Rs. 40,000.
- At the hour of the reception of the plaintiff, it concurred among Laxmibai and the regular dad of the plaintiff that the plaintiff’s appropriation should occur on condition that the non-watan properties were given in blessing to the two little girls of Laxmibai, her girl’s child and her sibling.
- It likewise concurred that Laxmibai will have authority over the watan properties and the plaintiff would get whatever Laxmibai wanted to give and he would not have any control during her lifetime.
- At the point when the plaintiff achieved the age of majority, he was reluctant to part with the properties thus it is his case that he was given dangers by the relatives to move the deeds.
- The threats given were:
- His marriage would not be played out, his schooling would be halted, and in conclusion, his adoption would be dropped.
Issue
Whether the plaintiff was made to ratify the gift deeds as a result of threats and undue influence as mentioned under Section 15 and 16 of the Indian Contract Act rendering them to be void?
Looking For Previous Year Question Papers of Various Subjects – Download The Law Express App
Rule
Importunity or threats or moral command asserted for the sake of peace and quiet if carried to such an extent by a person by virtue of his position to dominate the will of other, that the judgment or choice of other gathering is overweighed, at that point the assent so acquired is vitiated by the unnecessary impact.
Judgement
- The court held that the deed was to be set aside for undue influence for the following reasons:
- The plaintiff was living under the authority of Laxmibai such that he was dependent on her for maintenance and education to the extent that she was in a position to dominate his will.
- She also used her position of dominance to threaten him to obtain an advantage.
- The plaintiff was neither aware of his legal rights nor was he being allowed to consult his father.
- Thus, he could not act with free will and was being forced to act upon the deed.
Looking For Case Summaries of Various Subjects – Download The Law Express App
Reasoning
In the present case, the plaintiff was living under the authority of his assenting mother with the end goal that he was reliant on her for support and schooling to the degree that she was in a situation to rule his will. The plaintiff didn’t know about his legitimate rights nor was he permitted to counsel his normal father; he didn’t act with an open and free brain and with the information that the blessing deeds which were without anyone else invalid could
Current Day Significance
Applying that test here, I can’t help suspecting that the current case comes surprisingly close to the unjustifiable impact encapsulated in Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act. There are Indian cases likewise to show that incomparable conditions Courts have conceded help on comparable grounds: see Lakshmi Doss v. Roop Laul; the judgment of Sankaran Nair J. in Roop Laul v. Lakshmi Doss and Rama Patter v. Lingappa Gounder. The equivalent is the impact of a new English case, viz. Lancashire Loans Ltd. v. Dark.
