Law of contracts

Project topic:
Mannu singh vs. umadat pandey : case law
analysis

Submitted By
YOGANAND
Roll no. – 1986
th nd
1 Year, 2 Semester, B.A.,LL.B.(Hons.)

Submitted to
Miss. Sushmita singh
Faculty of contracts

Chanakya national Law University, Patna

SEPTEMBER, march 2019

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

1
It’s a fact that any research work prepared, compiled or formulated in
isolation is inexplicable to an extent. This research work, although prepared
by me, is a culmination of efforts of a lot of people.
Firstly, I would like to thank our teacher for the subject of LAW OF
CONTRACT , MISS SUSHMITA SINGH (ma’am) for assisting me with her
prudence in accomplishment of this work which relates to law of torts would
like to thank her for her valuable suggestions towards the making of this
project.
Thereafter, I would also like to express my gratitude towards our seniors who
played a vital role in the compilation of this project work.
I cannot ignore the contributions made by my classmates and friends towards
the completion of this project work. And I would also like to express my
gratitude towards the library staff of my college which assisted me in
acquiring the sources necessary for the compilation of my project.
Last, but not the least, I would like to thank the Almighty for obvious reasons.

-YOGANAND

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

2
I, hereby, declare that the work reported in the B.A. L.L.B (Hons.) Project Report

titled “MANNU SINGH VS. UMADAT PANDEY: CASE LAW ANALYSIS .”

submitted at CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA is an authentic
record of my work carried out under the supervision of Sushmita Singh. I
have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am
fully responsible for the contents of my Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

Yoganand (1986)

B.A. L.L.B., 1st year

SEMESTER -2ND

CNLU, Patna

Dated :

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction…………………………………………………
 Aims and objectives……………………………………...
 Hypothesis………………………………………………………
 Research methodology………………………………………………
2. Undue influence under contract law………………………………………...

 Meaning of Undue Influence

 Essential of undue influence

 Important fact of the case

4
 3. Mannu Singh vs. Umadat Pandey……..……………………….
 Fact of the case
 Declaration of mnu singh before the court

4. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………

5. Bibliography…………………………………………………................................

INTRODUCTION

Mannu singh vs. umadat pandey(undue influence)

In mannu singh vs. umadat pandey the plaintiff an aged person executed a deed of gift in
respect of the whole of the property n favour of the defendant who was plaintiff guru or
spiritual advisor .The only reason for the gift was his desire to secure benefit to his soul in the
next world and also in view of the plaintiff having heard recitation of the holy book,
Bhagwat. Soon after the execution of the same deed , the plaintiff applied for the cancellation
of the same by a suit brought by him under sec 39 of the Specific Relief Act , 1877.

5
 Section 111, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was applied to this situation according to
which in case of a person being in a position of active confidence , the burden of proof lies on
such a person who enjoys such a confidence . It was held that because of the fiduciary
relationship between parties , and the absurdity of the reason given by the plaintiff in the gift
deed for executing the gift deed , and in view of the provision contained in the section 111 ,
Indian Evidence Act , 1872 the defendant must prove the absence of undue influence , and
since he had failed to prove the absence of undue influence , the plaintiff is entitled to obtain
the cancellation of the deed1.

To understand the case in detail 1st we have to understand what is undue influence and its
essentials.

UNDUE INFLUENCE

Meaning of Undue Influence

1. Where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is (temporarily or

permanently) affected by reason of age, illness, or bodily distress. For Example—

2. Where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a
fiduciary relation to other; or

3. S. 16 of Indian Contract Act lay down — A contract is said to be induced by 'undue

influence' where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is
1
Contract-1 by DR. R.k. Bangia

6
in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair
advantage over the other. S. 16 further says that a person is deemed to be in a position to
dominate the will of another —

4. A, having advanced money to his son B during his minority, upon B’s coming of age
obtains, by misuse of parental influence, a bond from If for a greater amount than the sum
due in respect of the advance. A employe undue influence.

5. A, a man enfeebled by disease or age, is induced, by B’s influence over him as his medical
attendant, to agree to pay B an unreasonable sura for his professional services. B employs
undue influence.

6. A being in debt to B, the money-lender of his village, contracts a fresh loan on terms which
appear to be unconscionable. It lies on B to prove that the contract was not induced by undue
influence.

ESSENTIALS OF UNDUE INFLUENCE

The essentials of the undue influence are as follows —    

1. The Relations Between the Parties are Such that One Party has Ability to Dominate the
Will of Another — Sometimes the parties to an agreement are so related to each other that
one of them is in a position to dominate the will of the other. The person who occupies the
superior position may prevail upon the other to obtain his consent to an agreement to which
he, but for the influence so exerted, would not have consented. For example — In Mannu
Singh Vs. Umadat Pande (1890) All. 523; a spiritual adviser (guru), induced the plaintiff, his
devotee, to gift to him the whole of his property to secure benefits to his soul in the next
world. Such a consent is said to be obtained by undue influence.

7
Now the question arises for consideration as to when can it be said that one party is in a
position to dominate the will of the other? The answer is, in all cases where “confidence is
reposed and betrayed.” It applies generally “to all variety of relations in which domination
may be exercised by one person over another.” “The relationships which may develop a
dominating influence of one over another are infinitely various.”

2. prejudice to the generality of the above principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to

dominate the will of another in the following cases —

Person having real or apparent authority over the other— A person in authority is definitely
able to dominate the will of the person over whom the authority is held. The authority may be
real or apparent. Persons in authority would include an income-tax officer in relation to an
assessee; a magistrate or police officer in relation to an accused and the like. The expression
“apparent authority” would include cases in which a person has no real authority, but is able
to approach the other with a show or colour of authority.

Person standing in fiduciary relation to the other —The term fiduciary relation includes the
relationship of solicitor and client, trustee and beneficiary, spiritual adviser and his devotee,
doctor and patient, woman and her confidential managing agent, parent or guardian and child,
creditor and debtor. The relationship of trust and confidence presents a very good opportunity
to the person in whom confidence is held to exploit it to his own use. A contract between
persons so related is, therefore, voidable if ihe consent was obtained by abusing the
confidence. It is a matter of fact that every relationship of trust and confidence is a fiduciary
relationship.

Person Making a Contract with a Person Whose Mental Capacity is Affected by Reason of
Age, Illness or Mental or Bodily Distress — A person is said to be in distress when his
mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected. It may be due to extreme old age or
mental or bodily illness or any other cause. Such a person is easily persuaded to give consent
to a contract which may be unfavourable to him. For example — In Rannee Annapurni Vs.
Swami Natha, (1910) 34 Mad. 7, a poor Hindu widow who was in great need of money to
establish her right to maintenance, was persuaded by a moneylender to agree to pay 100 per
cent rate of interest. This is a clear instance of undue influence being exerted upon a person in
distress, and the court reduced the interest to 24 percent

8
Burden of Proof that Contract was Not Induced by Undue Influence shall Lie on the Person in
a Position to Dominate the Will of Another —

S. 16 (3) provides that where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another,
enters into a contract with him and the transation appears on the face of it or on the evidence
adduced, to be unconscionable the burden of proving that such a contract was not induced by
undue influence shall lie upon the person who is in a position to dominate the will of another.
Fof Example—A being in debt to B, the money lender of his village, contracts a fresh loam
on terms which appear to be unconscionable. It lies on B to prove that the contract was not
induced by undue influence.

IMPORTANT FACT OF THE CASE

CASE NO:

First appeal no. 34 of 1889 from an order of Munshi kulwant Prasad subordinate judge of
Azamgarh dated the 30th January 1889.

JUDGE :

Mahmood JJ.

9
ADVOCATES:

1. Munsh juala Prasad and Babu rajendro Nath Mukherji for the appellant.

2. Babu Bisham Chandra Moitro, for the respondent .

ACTS:

1. Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act

2. Section 39 of Specific Relief Act
3. 111, Evidence Act , 1 of 18722

MANNU SINGH {PLAINTIFF} VS. UMADAT PANDEY { DEFENDANT}

This first appeal relates to a suit instituted on the 23rd August, 1888, in the Court of the
Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh by the plaintiff, who is the appellant before the court, against
the defendants, five in number, the principal of whom is one Umadat Pandey, a Brahman,
they done under an alleged deed of gift of 26th April, 1888. The suit is not an ejectment suit,
but is one to obtain the specific form of relief contemplated by s.30 of the Specific Relief
Act, and what the plaintiff asked was that an alleged deed of gift of 26th April, 1888 3, should
be set side; in other words, that the Court should order the document to be delivered up and

https://www.lawbriefcase.com/subs/contracts1/undue_influence

3
shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in

10
cancelled in the way contemplated by the section of the Act to which I have referred The
grounds upon which the plaintiff asked this relief. I need not more particularly mention
except to say that at the outset he questioned whether he had ever executed the alleged deed
of gift at all and next he went on to say that it he had the document was spurious and
fictitious and it was not executed by him willingly and voluntarily. Now 1am not dealing with
the plant as a Court of first instance, or possibly I might, if it had been first presented to me at
the outset of the suit, have had something today as to the form in which it was drawn up, and
I might have thought greater particularity n the allegations of fraud necessary, but no
objection was taken by the defendants to the form of the plaint, and the suit proceeded to trial
upon as it stood. Both the parties have given evidence in the cause, and upon that evidence
the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge has been passed in favour of the defendants and
against the plaintiff which decision is the subject matter of the appeal. The only plea that I
think it necessary to consider for the purpose of deciding this case is the second plea, which is
in the following terms: the decision is bad upon the ground that the transaction set up by the
respondent cannot be enforced and recognized by a Court .

FACT OF THE CASE

Now what is the case, taking the facts as put forward on the part of the plaintiff on the one
side and the defendants on the other? The plaintiff is a kashtriya by caste He is a man well
advanced [525] in years one who not unnaturally would be contemplating that debt could not
be very far distant As with most Hindus he necessarily attached great importance to and held
in high reverence the ministrations of Brahmans. To which caste the principal defendant
Umadat belongs. Umadat is a man of some 43 years of age, and this obvious from the
remarks of the learned Subordinate Judge that he is a person held in high consideration
amongst the people of the locality in which he resides Now the sole property of which the
plaintiff was possessed in the month of April 1866, whether in the shape of unencumbered

11
proprietorship or in the shape of an equity of redemption ,a two- annas -eight pies share in
mauza Sidhanna Ragboram, pargana Deogaon 4, valued according to the plaintiff, at Rs 6,000
or, according to the defendant, Ro.2.999, but subject to certain mortgage 1 charges the
precise amount of which is not clear. The document, cancellation of which is sought by the
plaintiff, purports to have been executed by him upon the 26th April, 1888, and having had
an opportunity of examining the terms of the instrument. I do not think I can do better than to
state them as they have been translated to us by the Reader of the Court.

DECLARATION BY MANNU SINGH BEFORE THE COURT

I, Mannu Singh, son of Sheozor Singh, deceased, caste Chatri, by occupation zemindar and
being resident and zemindar of mauza Sidhanna Raghoram, do hereby declare that as I have
become old and have no issue, nor is there any hope that I shall, therefore, with a view of
securing benefit to my soul in the next world, having a month ago heard the recital from Sri
Bhagwat by Umadat Pandit, caste Brahman. who is my guru or spiritual guide, I have given a
two annas share and out of two annas guitansi right of Saran Singh an eight pies share, in all,
two annas eight pies share in mauza Sidanna Raghoram of which I, declare that, am in

https://www.lawbriefcase.com/subs/contracts1/undueinfluence

12
possession, and have made a present and a gift by danpattr to the aforesaid guru of the share
aforesaid, and he will remain in possession and pay Government revenue, and defraying all
usual expenses, derive benefit there from generation after generation. Now I have no kind of
concern, and I will cause mutation of names and will bring forward no excuse. If on behalf of
me there is any evasion, then the guru may himself by application make mutation of names
on the document5."

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT TAKING OTHER PREVIOUS JUDGEMENT INTO

CONSIDERATION:

Now in this document, which has been found by the learned Subordinate Judge to have been
in fact executed by the plaintiff, he states that the defendant is his spiritual guide or guru, and
in the defendant's own statement of defence in the suit, he also has declared that he was the
plaintiff's spiritual guide or guru, and according to the fourth paragraph of the statement of
defence, the circumstances under which the deed of gift was made were as follows-:

https://www.karvy.com

13
“The plaintiff has heard him reciting the holy book called Bhagwat, and with the view of
deriving benefit in the next world, the plaintiff having made eleemosynary gift (shankalp) of
the property, willingly and voluntarily executed a deed of gift (danpattr), and had it
registered, and since the time of the execution of the deed of gift, the defendant holds
possession of the property by payment of the Government revenue6”.

So that taking the deed of gift itself and the terms used in it in conjunction with those
statements made by the defendant himself, I have no doubt that the defendant was the guru or
spiritual guide of the plaintiff, and that such was the relation held by him n regard to the
plaintiff, moreover, I take the defendant's own statements as showing what were the
circumstances under which the document was executed by the plaintiff in favour of
defendant. Now it is upon these materials that in my opinion the appeal ought to be decided,
and I do not think it is necessary to diverge into other matters which are mentioned in the
decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, though I have to make a few remarks as to the
contention which has been raised before us to day in regard to what appears in the learned
Subordinate Judge's judgment upon the point ac to how far possession is necessary to
constitute a valid and binding gift under the Hindu law and how tar, it it is, the principle or
the rule of Hindu law has been abrogated by s. 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, or in
other words, whether assuming in this case that there has been. as found by the leamed
Subordinate [527] Judge, no possession on the part of the defendant of the property the
subject of gift, the detect would be cured by the provisions of s. 123 of the Transfer of
Property Act. Our attention was called to the ruling of the Calcutta Court in Dharmodas Das
v. Nistannı Dasi also to Harjpvan Anandaram V, Naran Haribhai(2), Vasudey Bhat v.
Narayan Daji Damle(3) Dagai Dabee v Mathura Nath Chattopadhya(4), and last but not the
least, to the dcision of thelr Lordships of the Privy Council in Kali Das Mullick v. Kanhya
Lal Pandit(5). Now from the view in which I am disposed to deal with the case I do not
consider it necessary to enter into what is a complicated and difficult question, and upon
which at this moment l am not altogether satisfied as to what is the correct view, whether for
the purpose of making a good tile in the done under the forms of a gift, actual possession
must be given to the done in order to satisfy the requirements of the Hindu law. There is of

https://www.slideshare.net/satyavrat1994/undue-influence-fraud-misrepresentation

14
course direct authority in the ruling in Dharmodas Das v. Nistarini Dasi for the view that s.
123 of the Transfer of Property Act has so far overridden the Hindu law, and there are also
expressions of opinion of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Kali Das Mullick v. Kanhya
Lal Pandit at page 232 which raise considerable doubt and difficulty as to the soundness of
the principle that possession is absolutely necessary, but the exigencies of the case do not
require that 1 should determine the question. It must therefore be understood that any
conclusion at which I arrive in this case is not based on any determination of that question.

Reverting to the position occupied towards one another by the plaintiff and the defendant as
they appear upon the materials before me, I have to say that in no way depart from the
principles that I very fully discussed, considered and adopted in Sital Prasad v. Parbhu Lal 6.
My judgment in that case was one I took some pains to consider, and I endeavoured therein to
state in as explicit language as I could what I believe to be the true rule that should govern
cases of this description. At page 545 of the report I said But what the Courts in this country
will do, is to see that, where one person is so situated as to be under the control and influence
of another, such other does not unduly for his own advantage or or unfairly exercise that
influence and control of another, such other does not unduly or unfairly exercise that
influence and control over such person for his own advantage or benefit, or for the advantage
or benefit of some religious object in which he is interested and will call upon him to give
clear and cogent proof that the transaction complained of was such a one as the law would
support and recognise7."

Then at a later stage I say:- Where a fiduciary or quasi fiduciary relation had existed, Courts
of equity have always placed the burden of sustaining the transaction upon the party benefited
by it, requiring him to show that it was of an unobjectionable character and one which it
ought not to disturb Now this principle is recognized in the law of evidence in this country
which declares that where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between
parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence, the burden of
proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active
confidence. [S 111, Evidence Act, I of 1872]. Now applying this rule to the present case,
what is the reasonable inference? The defendant was, as I have found him to be, upon the
statement of the plaintiff himself in his deed of gift, and upon the defendant's statement, the
guru or spiritual guide of the plaintiff, and without any other than the absurd reason given by
the defendant, upon the 26th April, 1888, the plaintiff was led to strip himself of all the
7
Supra note - 6

15
property of which he was possessed and to hand it over to the defendant. Would any
reasonable man in full possession of his senses and not under unusual influence of some kind
or other do such a thing? If, instead of having been able to goal at the time when he made the
deed of gift the plaintiff had been confined to his bed illness, what would have been the
inference, or if that sickness had ended in death, by at would have been the inference? I have
no doubt that the rule I have indicated is a [5 sound one, for the purpose of protecting people
who from their religious fanaticism or old age and infirmities are under the influence and
control of others when they have been influenced into doing what they would not otherwise
have done, by requiring that the person seeking to sustain the transaction should show that it
was carried through in perfect good faith and in such a way as to show that it was the
voluntary and spontaneous act of the party to be affected Now it does not appear to me,
reading the learned Subordinate Judges judgment and giving full effect to the argument
addressed on behalf of the respondent and to the evidence, that there was any proof before the
Court below nor is there before us to show us that transaction of the 26th April, 1888, was
one that by our decree we ought to sustain, and speaking for myself I am quite unable to
uphold it, taking as I do the defendant's own evidence, which leaves on my mind the
irresistible impression that the defendant did take advantage of his relation towards the to
lead him to do this most improvident act and one which he almost immediately after
repudiated. But even if I do not put it so high, it seems to me that the defendant has wholly
failed to discharge the burden of showing that the transaction was made without undue
influence and in good faith. I hold that in the absence of proof of this kind, the gift to the
defendant must be treated as invalid, and than the plaintiff is entitled to the relief he see s. I
therefore am of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in the view, h took,
and reversing his decree, I declare the appeal and the claim of the plaintiff, and direct that a
decree be prepared in favour of the plaintiff for the purpose of giving effect to his claim in
accordance with s. 39 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff will get his costs in all the
Courts Mahmood, J.-I am of the same opinion and wish to add nothing beyond saying that
honour in the doctrine laid down by my brother Straight in Sital Prasad v. Parbhu Lal, so far
as the ruling applies to the existence of fiduciary relationship between a priest or spiritual
guide of perconsin transactions with the latter. so that all the presumptions would be against
the defendant in the case, and the decree passed by my learned brothers is only that could be
passed in the case8.

8
Supra note- 6

16
 CONCLUSION
This suit is not an ejectment suit, but is one to obtain the specific form of relief contemplated
by s.30 of the Specific Relief Act, and what the plaintiff asked was that an alleged deed of
gift of 26th April, 1888, should be set side; in other words, that the Court should order the
document to be delivered up and cancelled in the way contemplated by the section of the Act
to which I have referred the grounds upon which the plaintiff asked this relief. Where a
fiduciary or quasi fiduciary relation had existed, Courts of equity have always placed the
burden of sustaining the transaction upon the party benefited by it, requiring him to show that

17
it was of an unobjectionable character and one which it ought not to disturb Now this
principle is recognized in the law of evidence in this country which declares that where there
is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the
other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the
transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence.

I am of the same opinion and wish to add nothing beyond saying that honour in the doctrine
laid down Straight in Sital Prasad v. Parbhu Lal, so far as the ruling applies to the existence
of fiduciary relationship between a priest or spiritual guide of perconsin transactions with the
latter. So that all the presumptions would be against the defendant in the case, and the decree
passed is only that could be passed in the case.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS-

1. LAW OF CONTRACT-1 BY R.K. BANGIA

2. CONTRACT AND SPECIFIC RELIEF BY AVTAR SINGH

18
WEBSITES-:

1.

https://www.lawbriefcase.com/subs/contracts1/undueinfluence

2. shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in

3.

https://www.slideshare.net/satyavrat1994/undue-influence-fraud-misrepresentation

4.

https://www.karvy.com/DATA

19