Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Facts of The Case
Facts of The Case
Facts of The Case
The plaintiff, named Narasimha Bhatta was of old age and was suffering from
diabetes for long and his physical and mental condition was very weak.
In December 1955, he was taken to the Mangalore accompanied by his wife Lakshmi
Amma by the respondent (who was his grandson) T. Narayana Bhatta and was
admitted to Ramakrishna Nursing Home where he remained from December 10 to
December.
Later, on 15 December, respondent managed to get Ext. B-3 by plaintiff. By this deed
of settlement the entire properties in which plaintiff was reserving only life time
interests for himself besides making some provision for the maintenance of his wife
Lakshmi Amma which were considerable were given to respondent.
Then the appellant Lakshmi Amma filed a suit against respondent stated that the will
and settlement deed was null and void and was executed under influence when the
plaintiff was in a weak state of mind. There were no. of issues which was framed on
the pleadings of the parties.
On March 31, 1959, the Trial court by its judgement decreed the suit holding that the
will was invalid and that the deed of settlement Ext. B-3 was also invalid. It was held
that during the execution the plaintiff was of weak mind and was not in position to
take care of himself and to manage his affairs properly.
Then the respondent appealed to the High court.
During the pendency of the appeal the plaintiff died on October 8, 1959 due to which
by the order of the court dated November 30,1959 his widow Lakshmi Amma and
their daughters Adithiamma and Parameshwariamma were impleaded as legal
representatives.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a
person is considered to be in a position to dominate the will of another;
(a) If he apparent authority over the other
(b) If he makes a contract with a person who suffers from such as mental,
psychological, physical or disability or illness.
(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a
contract with him and the transaction appears on the face of it or in the evidence adduced, to
be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was no induced by undue
influence shall be upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other.
Nothing in the sub-section shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872.
Some relevant cases related to the case:
Subhash Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prasad Das Mushib AIR 1967
SC 878
Plaintiff’s father Prasanna Kumar owned certain lands and he gave all his property to
his another son Balaram (second defendant) and to his grandson Subhash Chandra
(first defendant). The plaintiff sued against the defendants and claimed that the
Balaram used undue influence to transfer the property as he was not present at the
time when the deed was registered and asked for a cancellation of the transaction.
The court held that there was no evidence regarding the domination of
Balaram over the will of his father at the time of execution of the deed and Prassana
also actively took interest in the management of the property. Also the parties were
related to each other no presumption of undue influence can arise.
PROJECT ON CASE :-
LAKSHMI AMMA V. T. NARAYANA BHATTA
1970(3) SCC 159
VISHAL CHOUDHARY
B.A.LL.B. (Hons.
Section- ‘B’
2nd Semester (2021-2026)
Enrollment Number – CUSB2113125128
School of Law and Governance,
Central University of South Bihar
TABLE OF THE CONTENT
2 INTRODUCTION 4
8 CONCLUSION 11
INTRODUCTION
CASE NAME: “ LAKSHMI AMMA V. T. NARAYANA BHATTA 1970(3)
SCC 159 “
PETITIONER- LAKSHNI AMMA
RESPONDENT – T. NARAYANA BHATTA
COURT – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DECIDED ON – 10/03/1970
BENCH - A.N. Grover, J.C. Shah and K.S. Hegde, JJ
EQUIVALENT CITATION – AIR 1970 SC 1367, (1970) 3 SCC 159
MANUPATRA CITATION - MANU/SC/0355/1970
Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by- (1) Coercion, section 15 or (2)
undue influence, section 16 or (3) fraud, section 17 or (4) misrepresentation, section
18 or (5) mistake, section 20,21 and 22.
Where a person was suffering from a number of ailments which confined him in a
nursing home and from there, he made a deed gifting all his properties to one of his sons
to the exclusion of others, it was held that the presumption of undue influence was proper.
CONCLUSION
In these case “LAKSHMI AMMA VS T. NARAYANA BHATTA”, the respondents are
held liable as they took the advantage of plaintiff who was of advanced age and was suffering
from diabetes and other ailments and whose physical and mental condition was very weak
and they executed a deed settling entire plaintiff’s property to his grandson (respondent).
Case came under section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which defines the term undue
influence. According to section 16, 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 in a position to
dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the
other.