Punjab-Haryana High Court
Janpal Singh (Since Deceased) Through … vs Radha Swami Satsang Beas And Another on 13 March, 2026
RSA-1114-2025 Page 1 of 46
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
113
RSA-1114-2025(O&M)
Date of decision: 13.03.2026
Janpal Singh (since deceased) through his LRs
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Radha Swami Satsang Beas & Others
...Respondent(s)
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Anmol Rattan Singh Dhillon, Advocate
Mr. Vishal Pundir, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Rajesh Chander Kumar Rohra, Senior Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Khatri, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Vikas Arora, Advocate
Mr. Lovekesh Mehta, Advocate
for the respondent No.1.
Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate
for respondent No.2(ii) to (vi).
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent
judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby suit filed by the
appellant for declaration and permanent injunction, has been dismissed by
both the Courts below.
1 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 2 of 46
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is the son of defendant
No.2/Darshan Singh. The appellant had filed the instant Civil Suit seeking
declaration as co-owner in joint possession of the suit property which is
stated to be Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property. It was averred in the
plaint that plaintiff and defendant No.2 along with other children of
defendant No.2 constitute Joint Hindu Family. Thus, plaintiff by virtue of his
birth being a co-parcener, is co-owner in joint possession of the suit property,
besides some other land owned and possessed and entered in the name of
defendant No.2 as ‘Karta’. The suit property as detailed in the plaint is total
measuring 61 kanal 18 marla as per Jamabandi for the year 2000-01. Being
co-parcener, the plaintiff has ownership rights over the suit property by birth
and is co-owner in joint possession of the suit land and other land owned by
defendant No.2 as ‘Karta’.
3. It was further averred that defendant No.2 is suffering from
mental illness and is not of sound disposing mind. It was alleged that he had
been hypnotised by some of the followers of defendant No.1/Dera. Due to
this, defendant No.2 had gifted land measuring 23 kanal 10 marla to the
defendant No.1 vide way of Gift Deed No.2453/1 dated 21.02.2011. Again,
vide Gift Deed dated 06.05.2011, defendant No.2 had gifted land measuring
16 kanal 9 marla to the defendant No.1. Finally, vide Sale Deed dated
29.09.2011, defendant No.2 had sold suit land measuring 21 kanal 19 marla
for Rs.30 lakh to the defendant No.1; thereby disposing of the entire suit land
2 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 3 of 46
in favour of defendant No.1. The plaintiff alleged that the said Deeds of
Transfer are illegal, null and void as defendant No.2 was not competent to
transfer the suit land as the same was Joint Hindu Family coparcenary
property of the plaintiff and defendant No.2. Moreover, Defendant No.2 was
not in sound disposing mind. The above documents of Transfer are result of
undue influence exerted by followers of defendant No.1 upon defendant
No.2. Even the alleged consideration of Rs.30 lakh had never passed hands.
In any event, defendant No.2 was not competent to alienate any specific killa
number of the joint land. Further as defendant No.2 was not in possession of
the suit land, no possession was delivered to the defendant No.1. The
plaintiff had requested the defendants several times to get the afore-
mentioned documents set aside and not to interfere in his possession over
the suit property; however, the defendants had refused to accede to his
request. Hence, present suit for declaration and permanent injunction was
filed on 11.04.2012, seeking “a decree for declaration to the effect that gift
deeds dated 21-02-2011, 06-05-2011 and sale deed dated 29-09-2011 in
favour of defendant no. 1 are illegal, null, void and not binding over the rights
of the plaintiff over the suit property and a decree for permanent injunction
as consequential relief restraining defendant no. 1 from interfering into
the ,lawful and peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property now
and in future in any manner be passed with cost in favour of the plaintiff
against the defendants.”
3 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 4 of 46
4. Upon notice, the defendant No.1 had appeared and resisted the
suit by filing written statement questioning the maintainability of the suit as
also the locus of the plaintiff. It was contended that the suit land was self-
acquired property of defendant No.2 and not Joint Hindu Family or co-
parcenary property. It was further averred that defendant No.2 had
contacted defendant No.1 and stated that he wanted to alienate suit land by
way of Will in favour of defendant No.1. However, defendant No.1 had
requested defendant No.2 to alienate suit land by way of Sale after receiving
due sale consideration. But Defendant No.2 was not ready to take sale
consideration from the Dera as he was a strong follower of the Radha Swami
Satsang Beas. Accordingly, defendant No.2 of his own free will and volition
had executed the two Gift Deeds in favour of defendant No.1. When the Dera
authorities had discovered the same, they had asked defendant No.2 to make
alienation by way of Sale Deed. Thereafter, defendant No.2 had executed the
Sale Deed No.4221/1 dated 29.09.2011 for land measuring 21 kanal 19 marla
in favour of the defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.30 lakh. However, even out
of the said sale consideration, defendant No.2 had again donated a sum of
Rs.10 lakh to the defendant No.1. It was stated that the said Gift Deeds and
Sale Deed had been executed by defendant No.2 of his own free will and
without any pressure from any quarter. It was stated that the suit property is
self-acquired property of defendant No.2 as the same had been purchased
by defendant No.2 from his own funds after selling his property in Uttar
4 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 5 of 46
Pradesh. It was further averred that defendant No.2 had purchased sufficient
land in the name of plaintiff as well; and even in the name of his father
Gurdeep Singh. It was contended that other daughters of defendant No.2
were also willing to establish Satsang Ghar in the land of their father and for
this reason also, defendant No.2 had alienated suit land in favour of
defendant No.1. Electricity connection had been transferred in the name of
defendant No.1; therefore, possession was with the Dera. Other averments
made in the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
5. Defendant No.2, father of the plaintiff had filed a separate
written statement along the same lines by questioning the maintainability of
the suit; and locus standi of the plaintiff. It was denied that the suit land was
Joint Hindu family coparcenary in nature; and it was stated that the same was
his self-acquired property; and plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the
same. It was further stated that both the Gift Deeds and Sale Deeds were
executed by him in favour of defendant No.1 of his own free will and consent.
He also denied suffering from any mental illness or problem. He denied that
he was hypnotised or put under any undue influence by followers of
defendant No.1 thereby forcing him to execute the aforesaid documents.
Denying all other contentions dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
6. Replication was not filed.
7. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed
by the learned trial Court vide order dated 19.02.2013:-
5 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 6 of 46
1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declara-
tion and permanent injunction, as prayed for?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the pre-
sent suit?OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has not affixed the advalorem Court
Fee?OPD
4. Relief.”
8. Upon appraisal of pleadings and oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the parties, the trial Court decided Issue No.1 against the plaintiff
and in favour of defendants; Issue No.2 against the plaintiff and in favour of
the defendants; Issue No.3 was not pressed by learned counsel for the
plaintiffs and was accordingly disposed of. Consequently, vide judgment and
decree dated 25.10.2017, learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Kaithal
had dismissed the suit. The civil appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by
the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide judgment and
decree dated 05.02.2025. Hence, present second appeal by the plaintiff.
9. At the very outset, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
submits that the plaintiff-appellant is not pressing the issue that the suit land
is ancestral in nature.
10. In respect of the other issues, it is inter alia submitted by learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant that it is writ large on the record of the case
that the impugned Gift Deeds and Sale deeds were procured by the
defendant No.1 from defendant No.2 by exercising undue influence. Learned
6 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 7 of 46
Senior Counsel submits that it is the own admitted case of the defendant
No.2 in his written statement that he/defendant no.2 was a “strong follower”
of the defendant No.1-Dera. A recital to this effect is contained in the
impugned Gift Deeds and Sale Deed as well. This fact has been admitted by
defendant no.1 in its written statement also. It is contended that from these
admissions, it is established that there existed a fiduciary relationship
between the defendants; in wrongful exercise of which the defendant No.1
has exercised undue influence upon the defendant No.2 and got executed
the impugned Gift Deeds and Sale Deeds by taking advantage not just of their
fiduciary relationship but also of the mental instability and unsound mind of
defendant No.2. It is reiterated that the recitals in the impugned Gift Deeds
and the Sale Deed are unequivocal in stating that Darshan Singh was a “blind
follower” of the defendant No.1-Society, as a result of which, he disposed of
his entire property to secure mental peace, heavenly abode and other
unseen benefits in favour of the Dera. These facts have been admitted by the
defendant No.1 in their own written statement in acknowledging that
defendant No.2 had desired to transfer suit land in favour of the defendant
No.1. It is contended that therefore, it is proved that the impugned Gift
Deeds and Sale Deeds are the result of undue influence.
11. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that given the fact that
the father of the appellant was a geriatric person being 75 years old, and of
unsound mind, while the respondent No.1-Society being a spiritual
7 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 8 of 46
organisation, the latter was in a dominating position. Moreover, father of the
appellant was “blind follower” of the respondent No.1-Society. It is
contented that in such a situation, a presumption would arise that the
documents in question have been executed by exercise of undue influence
by the Dera upon the defendant No.2. It is argued that in this situation, it is
upon the respondent Dera to prove that no undue influence was exercised
by the Dera in procuring the impugned documents. In support, learned
Senior Counsel relies upon judgment of the Kerala High Court in Philip Lukka
v. Fraciscan Association (Kerala) (DB) : Law Finder Doc ID # 170245, wherein
it is held that: –
“Contract Act, 1872, Section 16 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882,
Section 122 – Gift in favour of spiritual organisation – Court
always requires strict proof of voluntary disposition in favour of
spiritual organisation – Spiritual domination over mind of donor,
his life long ill-health, lack of self will and manly capacity and
blind and religious devotional frame of mind held, proved undue
influence – Gift held to be vitiated by undue influence and fraud.
XXX
5. The plaint clearly averred that a priest by name Rev. Father
Francis (who represents the 1st defendant-Franciscan
Association) visited the plaintiff on 14-9-1974, when he was an
in-patient in the St. Joseph Mission Hospital, Mannanam. The
visit was with the 3rd defendant, Father of a highly placed Priest,
who knew intimately the approaches and attitudes of the
plaintiff towards life, religion and the priesthood,
Representation had been made to him about the Association’s
8 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 9 of 46
preparedness to look after him and his mother, on the property
being gifted to the Association. The visit was repeated on 22-9-
1974. If was represented to him that his brother-in-law was a
consenting party to such an arrangement. He was, however,
directed to keep the matter a secret. Other assurances had also
been made in the event of the execution of the gift deed.
6. As to how the registration happened to be made at Karukachal,
has been graphically and specifically detailed in the plaint. He
was secretly taken by the 3rd defendant early morning on 27-1-
1975 to Changanacherry. He was made to stay in the S.M.
Boarding House there. The 3rd defendant had interdicted any
communication of the object of the mission even to those who
might meet him on the way. By about dusk, he was taken to the
presence of the Arch Bishop, Changanacherry. Defendants 1 and
2 told him that all matters had been conveyed to the Arch Bishop
and consequently the conversation between the plaintiff and the
Arch Bishop was confined to an ordinary courtesy. In the next
morning, defendants 1 and 2 took him in a car, to Karukachal
and took him to a convent. From there he was taken to the Sub
Registry Office and the document was got registered there
without revealing its contents to him. When questioned about
the necessity of registering the document, he was informed that
the Sub Registrar’s son was a former student of the S.H. High
School and consequently it would be easier to have the
registration in that Sub Registry Office. Apparently to make the
story convincing, Fr. Mathew Njallathuweli was also there.
XXX
14. When a gift is made in favour of a spiritual organisation in
such circumstances, the Courts always used to expect a high
9 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 10 of 46
degree of proof about the voluntary and genuine character of
the transaction. That has been the case from the days of Allcard
v. Skinner, (1887) 36 Ch D 145. As Lindley L.J. pointed out :
“The influence of one mind over another is very subtle, and of all
influences religious influence is the most dangerous and the
most powerful, and to counteract it Courts of equity have gone
very far.”
Not only the parties directly involved in the transaction but also
purchasers with notice even for value, would have to face the
serious and adverse consequences. Wilmot, C.J. observed in
Maitland v. Irving, (1846) 15 Sim 437:
“Whoever receives (the gift must take it tainted and infected
with the undue influence and imposition of the person procuring
the gift; his partitioning and cantoning it out amongst his
relations and friends will not purify the gift and protect it against
the equity of the person imposed upon. Let the hand receiving it
be ever so chaste, yet, if it comes through a corrupt polluted
channel, the obligation of restitution will follow it.”
The legal position is summed up in Chashire and Fifoot’s Law of
Contract, Ninth Edition, Pages 291 to 294. In somewhat similar
circumstance the Allahabad High Court set aside the transfer of
property by a disciple in favour of his spiritual teacher who was
in a position to dominate his will particularly having regard to
the mental weakness induced by smeking of hemp. (See Manu
Singh v. Umadat Pande, ILR 12 Allahabad 523).
15. The cumulative effect of the evidence in the case is so
formidable that a clear case of undue influence is established by
the plaintiff. In any view of the matter, the circumstances are
such that the burden of establishing the validity of the
10 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 11 of 46
transaction was very heavy on the defendants, judged by the
tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Afsar Shaikh v. Soleman
Bibi, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 163. That burden has not been
sustained at all.”
(Emphasis added)
12. Learned Senior Counsel reiterates that in terms of the above
judgment, the onus was upon the defendant No.1 to prove that the
impugned documents have not been executed by Darshan Singh in favour of
the defendant No.1 by exercise of undue influence upon the defendant no.2.
13. Ld. Senior counsel further argues that the illegality of the
documents is made out from the fact that the defendant No.1 had failed to
examine any attesting witness, or Scribe, of the said documents to prove that
the same had been executed in accordance with law. Even the
executant/defendant No.2 was not examined by the Dera, thereby casting
shadow of doubt on the authenticity and veracity of said documents. It is
argued that being a religious organisation, and therefore, in a dominating
position, onus was upon the defendant No.1 to prove that the said
documents had been executed without any undue influence,
misrepresentation, or fraud. However, in the present case, the said Gift
Deeds and Sale Deed have not been proved by defendant No.1 by leading
any evidence on record. No witness has been examined to prove the said
documents. As such, authenticity of the said documents is not established.
11 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 12 of 46
14. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further elaborates to
submit that the defendant No.1 has failed to produce the best witness. It is
contended that even though defendant No.2 had filed written statement
supporting the case of the defendant No.1, yet defendant No.1 did not
examine defendant No.2. Even the relatives who were allegedly present at
the time of registration of the said documents, were not examined. Thus, the
defendant No.1 has failed to prove the execution of the said documents. It is
contended that in view of the fact that there are specific recitals in the Gift
Deeds as well as in the Sale Deeds as well as in the written statement to the
effect that Darshan Singh-defendant No.1 was a “strong follower” of the
defendant No.1-Dera, therefore, the initial onus was on the defendant No.1
to prove the said documents. In view of the above-said admission, there is
an automatic presumption that defendant No.1 being a spiritual organisation,
has exercised undue influence upon its devotee/defendant No.2; which
presumption has to be rebutted by defendant No.1 and show that no undue
influence has been exercised. However, no such evidence has been led by the
defendant No.1. Therefore, crucial evidence has been withheld by defendant
No.1 and they have failed to discharge their initial onus.
15. It is further contended that DW5 Tarun Girdhar, alleged
authorised representative of the defendant No.1 had deposed that wife and
relatives of Darshan Singh were present when the impugned documents
were scribed and typed; and when they went to the Office of Tehsildar their
12 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 13 of 46
photo was clicked. It is contended that despite this, no relative has been
examined by defendant No.1. Wife of Darshan Singh, who had appeared as
PW2, has supported the case of the plaintiff.
16. Ld. Senior counsel for the appellant again emphasises that there
are recitals in the Gift Deeds that defendant No.2 was “blind follower” of
Guru Sahiban; and that “……to receive love, affection & blessings, I am gifting
to Guru. ……” It is contended that in the written statement, it was the clear
stand of the defendant No.1 that defendant No.2 had offered to transfer the
suit land by way of Will, which was refused by defendant No.1. The Gift Deeds
were executed without notice to defendant No.1. Yet, defendant No.1 got
Sale Deed executed of the remaining land. Clearly therefore, the present is a
case of undue influence.
17. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the Society being
a spiritual organisation, there is presumption of spiritual domination. In such
a case, high degree of proof in terms of Section 16 of the Contract Act is
required to prove the voluntary and genuine character of the Gift Deeds. But
no evidence has been led by the defendant No.1 to rebut the above-said
presumption and to prove the Gift Deeds and Sale Deeds.
18. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that in any event, the
impugned documents were not admissible as only certified copies of the said
documents have been produced by the defendant No.1. It is contended that
as per Section 68 of the Evidence Act, the certified copies are per se not
13 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 14 of 46
admissible. A specific argument to this effect had been duly raised by the
appellant before the learned First Appellate Court, however, the said
argument has not been dealt with by the Additional District Judge. Learned
Senior Counsel contends that the First Appellate Court being the Court of
First Appeal, it was incumbent upon the Additional District Judge to deal with
every argument raised by the appellant; as also examine all the evidence on
record in minute detail; which has not been done. Therefore, provisions of
Order 41 CPC have not been complied with.
19. Ld. Senior counsel further submits that the defendant No.1 is a
Regd. Society. However, from a perusal of the Gift Deeds and the Sale Deeds
it is apparent that there is no Resolution of the Society in favour of the person
in whose favour the said documents were executed. There is no recital in the
said documents regarding such a Resolution attached in the records of the
Sub-Registrar nor any such Resolution has been placed on record before the
Trial Court. Thus, it has not been proved that the documents have been
executed in favour of respondent No. 1 which is a Registered Society. Even
DW-5 Tarun Girdhar who has been examined by defendant-respondent No.1
admits that the documents i.e. the Gift Deeds and Sale Deed were executed
in favour of one Sham Lal. However, there is no Resolution of the Society in
favour of said Sham Lal. In this regard, ld. Senior counsel refers to the
statements of DW-5 Tarun Girdhar and DW-1 Ravinder Singh to show that it
has been admitted that no Resolution of the defendant No.1 has been passed.
14 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 15 of 46
Even in the Gift Deeds, there is no recital of any Resolution. No evidence has
been produced by the defendant No.1 in respect of any Resolution. As the
defendant No.1 is a Society, it is bound to act through Resolutions. However,
only one Sham Lal had appeared at the time of registration of Gift Deed
without any authorisation from the defendant No.1-Society. Even no
Resolution has been produced before the Sub-Registrar. It is contended that
therefore, the impugned documents have been executed without authority.
20. It is again submitted that it has been ignored that it is well
settled law that a Regd. Society acts only through its Resolution, but there is
not even an iota of evidence on the record that the persons shown to be
present at the time of execution of the Gift Deeds and Sale Deed are in any
way connected with defendant-respondent no.1 nor the names of these
persons are mentioned in the recitals of these documents nor any Resolution
has been annexed in the records of the Sub-Registrar. DW5 Tarun Girdhar,
who is the authorised representative of the defendant No.1-Society, has
accordingly pleaded total ignorance about any Resolution or registration. In
this regard, learned Senior Counsel refers to the deposition of DW5 Tarun
Girdhar, wherein he has admitted in his cross-examination that: –
“There was no resolution on my naut to do work before
resolution no. 40. It is wrong to suggest that no document was
scribed in my presence. When the above said documents were
scribed at the time Darshan Singh along with his wife and
relatives came and got the documents typed and went to the15 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 16 of 46office of Tehsildar. After that his photo was clicked, signed and it
was given to tehsildar for signatures. Payment was made in sale
deed. … … … I donot know that who was authorized by Dera for
Documents. Volt Shyamlal got gift deed executed. I cannot bring
his authority letter And for Sale deed area secretary Dharam
Singh came. It is wrong to suggest that I have falsely deposed on
behalf of Shyam lal and Area secretary…”
21. Ld. Senior counsel for the appellant further submits that even
the Gift Deeds in question are not valid in law as the gift is not complete as
the possession of the suit land is still with the plaintiff-appellant. Moreover,
respondent No. 1-Society being a spiritual organization is not a juristic person
and not competent to accept the Gift. The finding that the electricity
connection was transferred in favour of respondent No.1 and thus possession
of Dera stood established is also incorrect. Using its influence, respondent-
Society got the electricity connection fraudulently transferred from the name
of a third person during the pendency of the suit.
22. It is further contended that mere admission by defendant No.2
in the written statement to the effect that the alienation was voluntary and
without any undue influence, is not sufficient to prove the same and has no
value in the eyes of law and cannot be read in evidence.
23. It is lastly submitted that the learned courts below have lost
sight of the fact that the alleged Gift Deeds as well as alleged Sale Deed have
been specifically denied and none of the original Gift Deeds or Sale Deed
16 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 17 of 46
have been produced on the file and no case of secondary evidence has been
made rather originals are admitted to be in possession of defendant No.1 nor
any attesting witness to the Gift Deed has been produced nor the defendant
No.2 has been produced in the witness box. Then none of the documents can
be said to be proved rather the said transactions shall be considered to be a
sham and bogus transaction and even the writer of the alleged Sale Deed has
not been produced in the witness box.
24. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel relies
upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Keshav v. Gian Chand (SC) : Law
Finder Doc ID # 1936001, relevant extract of which is as under: –
“Validity of Gift deed – Voluntariness and animus necessary for
execution of valid gift deed – Donee to discharge burden of
proving that he exerted no influence for purpose of obtaining
Gift deed.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sections 122 and 123 Contract Act,
1872 Section 16 Suit for possession and permanent injunction –
Validity of Gift deed – Held, voluntariness and animus necessary
for execution of valid gift deed, which is to be examined on basis
of evidence led by parties who can depose for truth – Further,
when a done obtains any benefit from another, court would call
upon person who wishes to maintain right to gift to discharge
burden of proving that he exerted no influence for purpose of
obtaining document – Therefore, order of High Court for setting
aside decree of suit for possession and permanent injunction set
aside.
XXX XXX XXX
17 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 18 of 468(iv) Hardei had denied execution of the gift deed before the
revenue authority in 1989, when the plaintiffs had moved
an application for mutation of the land in their favour.
Application filed by the plaintiffs for mutation was
rejected on 13th May 1989 in view of the contest and
objection raised by Hardei. The plaintiffs did not challenge
and question the rejection during the lifetime of Hardei….
9… … The fact in issue in the present case is voluntariness and
animus necessary for the execution of valid Gift Deed, which is
to be examined on the basis of evidence led by the parties who
could depose for the truth of this fact in issue… …
When a person obtains any benefit from another, the court
would call upon the person who wishes to maintain the right to
gift to discharge the burden of proving that he exerted no
influence for the purpose of obtaining the document. Corollary
to this principle finds recognition in sub-section (3) to section 16
of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which relates to pardanashin
ladies. The courts can apply this principle to old, illiterate, ailing
or infirm persons who may be unable to comprehend the nature
of document or contents thereot. Equally, one who bargains in
the matter of advantage with a person who places confidence in
him is bound to show that a proper and reasonable use has been
made of that confidence. The burden of establishing perfect
fairness, adequacy and equity is cast upon the person in whom
the confidence has been reposed. Therefore, in cases of fiduciary
relationships when validity of the transaction is in question it is
relevant to see whether the person conferring the benefit on the
other had competent and independent advice.
18 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 19 of 46
10. The question whether a person was in a position to dominate
the will of the other and procure a certain deed by undue
influence is a question of fact, and a finding thereon is a finding
of fact, and if arrived at fairly in accordance with the procedure
prescribed, it is not liable to be reopened in second appeal…”
25. Learned Senior counsel further relies upon judgment of
Rajasthan High Court in Munna Kumari v. Umrao Devi, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur
Bench) : Law Finder Doc ID # 119466, wherein it is held that: –
“12. Learned trial court as already noticed decided issue No. 3
against the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff did not
adduce any evidence that Nangi exercised undue influence over
Sugan Chand and got the gift deed executed in favour of Munna
Kumari. In my opinion, the trial court while arriving at this
conclusion did not properly consider the law as to undue
influence. In Afsar Sheikh s. Soleman Bibi, (1976)2 SCC 142), the
Apex Court indicated that the as to undue influence in the case
of a gift inter vivos is the same as in the case of a contract. It is
embodied in Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act. The
conditions stated in Section 16(1) must be pleaded with
particularly and proved by the person seeking to avoid the
transaction. Sub-section (2) is illustrative and sub-section (3)
contains a rule of evidence. For the burden to shift on the donee
both the conditions therein must be satisfied. Three stages for
consideration emerge: firstly, whether the plaintiff or the party
seeking relief on the ground of undue influence has proved that
the relations between the parties to each other are such that one
is in a position to dominate the will of the other, secondly, the
influence amounted to “undue influence” , and thirdly, the19 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 20 of 46transaction is unconscionable. Then only the burden of proving
that it was not induced by undue influence is to lie upon the
person who was in a position to dominate the will of the other.
13. In Subhas Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prosad Das Mushib,
( AIR 1967 Supreme Court 878) it was held that if the plea of
undue influence is raised the court must scrutinise pleadings to
find out that a plea has been made out and that full particulars
thereof have been given before examining whether undue
influence was exercised or not. In para 9 it was observed :-
The law in India as to undue influence as embodied in Section 16
of the Contract Act is based on the English Common law as noted
in the judgment of this Court in Ladli Prasad Jaiswal v. Karnal
distillery Co. Ltd., ( AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1279). According to
Halsbury’s Laws of England (Third Edition Vol. 17 P. 673 Article
1298) “where there is no relationship shown to exist from which
undue influence is presumed, that influence must be proved.”
Article 1299 P. 674 of the same volume shows that “there is no
presumption of imposition or fraud merely because a donor is
old or of weak character.” The nature of relations from the
existence of which undue influence is presumed is considered at
pages 678 to 681 of the same volume. The learned author notes
at Page 679 that “there is no presumption of undue influence in
the case of gift to a son, grand son or son-in-law, although made
during the donor’s illness and a few days before his death”.
Generally speaking the relation of solicitor and client, trustee
and cesti que trust, spiritual adviser and devotee, medical
attendant and patient, parent and child are those in which such
a presumption arises. Section 16(2) of the Contract Act shows
that such a situation can arise wherever the donee stands in a
20 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 21 of 46
fiduciary relationship to the donor or holds a real or apparent
authority over him.””
26. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and
the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside as illegal, ultra vires and
without jurisdiction.
27. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent
No.1 vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellant and submits that the preliminary and primary premise on which
the appellant had filed the present suit and had claimed ownership rights in
the suit property was that the suit land was Joint Hindu Family coparcenary
property; and therefore, the plaintiff being a coparcener/son of the
defendant No.2/Karta, he had an entitlement in the suit property by birth.
However, as the appellant has given up his contention that the suit land is
Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property, the entire basis of the plaint falls;
and therefore, the appellant is not competent to seek the declaration as
prayed for as, he is a stranger to the impugned Gift Deeds and Sale Deed. In
support, learned Senior Counsel relies upon judgment of this Court in Jarnail
Singh v. Gurmail Singh, (P&H) : Law finder Doc ID # 78661, wherein it is held
that stranger to a deed has no cause of action and locus to file the suit.
28. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the executant of
the impugned documents i.e. the defendant no.2, has not come forward to
lay challenge to the said documents. In this scenario, reliance of the appellant
21 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 22 of 46
upon Section 16 of the Contract Act, is misplaced as it is the contractee who
is authorised to question the contract; and not a third party i.e. the plaintiff
here. Therefore, the appellant cannot resort to Section 16 of the Contract Act.
29. As regards possession, the plaintiff in the Civil Suit and evidence
has stated that he is in possession. However, the attention of this Court is
brought to the report of the Court-appointed Local commissioner who had
submitted his report Ex.D-13, in which possession of the Dera is shown.
Reference is also made to the photographs Ex.D-1 to Ex. D-11 which also
reflect possession of the Dera, and the ongoing Dera activities.
30. It is contended that despite the above-said evidence on record
that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property, the plaintiff had
not amended the Civil Suit and had not sought to add relief of possession. It
is argued that for this reason as well, the Civil Suit was not maintainable as,
under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act simplicitor suit for declaration
without prayer for possession is not maintainable. Ld. Senior Counsel
contends that therefore, on the preliminary legal pleas of locus of the plaintiff
and maintainability of the suit, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
31. Further, even on merits, case of the plaintiff does not stand on
a strong footing. In the present case, defendant No.2 had duly appeared
before the Sub Registrar for registration of the Gift Deeds and the Sale Deed
at three different times over a period of six months. Defendant No.2 had
gone to the Office of the Sub-Registrar to do the needful. In this situation,
22 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 23 of 46
when the executant of the documents has not denied the documents, rather
has supported them by not laying challenge to them at any stage, and by
filing a written statement disputing and denying the case of the plaintiff, the
burden is on the plaintiff to prove his pleaded case. It is contended that if the
initial burden is not discharged, the burden would not shift to the defendant.
32. As regards undue influence, learned Senior Counsel contends
that except for a bald averment in the plaint, no evidence whatsoever has
been led by the plaintiff to substantiate his said plea. Even the plea of the
plaintiff that defendant No.2 was of unsound mind remains unsubstantiated.
It is contended that if defendant no.2 was in actual fact of unsound mind as
alleged, then as per provisions of CPC, plaintiff was required to make an
application and appoint a Guardian for defendant No.2. On the contrary,
plaintiff has himself arrayed the defendant No.2 as a contesting
party/defendant in the suit. Moreover, no evidence whatsoever in the form
of examining a doctor or any medical evidence has been led by the plaintiff
to remotely indicate in any manner that the defendant No.2 was of unsound
mind. On the contrary, it is seen from the record that defendant No.2 is
actively participating in all the proceedings before the Local Commissioner,
in filing written statement, in being represented in the Civil Suit through
counsel, thereby establishing that he was of clear and sound mind and had
voluntarily and of his own volition executed the impugned documents.
23 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 24 of 46
33. As regards producing certified copies of the documents, learned
Senior Counsel contends that first and foremost, the documents were not
required to be proved by producing attesting witnesses in view of the fact
that the said documents had not been denied by the executant i.e. defendant
No.2. Yet the defendant No.1 had duly examined DW2 Dhir Singh, Registry
Clerk, Office of Sub-Registrar, Pundri, who had stated that he had brought
certified copies of the documents which are correct as per the original. It is
contended that once the certified copies of the documents stood proved, the
attesting witnesses were not required to be examined. It is reiterated that as
the executant has not denied the documents, therefore, onus was not on the
defendants to prove the documents and bring attesting witnesses.
34. As regards recital in Gift Deed that the possession has been
given is sufficient, learned Senior Counsel relies upon judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in “Asokan v. Lakshmikutty & Others“(2007) 13 SCC 210,
wherein it is held that:-
“16. While determining the question as to whether delivery of
possession would constitute acceptance of a gift or not, the
relationship between the parties plays an important role. It is not
a case that the appellant was not aware of the recitals contained
in deeds of gift. The very fact that the defendants contend that
the donee was to perform certain obligations, is itself indicative
of the fact that the parties were aware thereabout. Even a
silence may sometimes indicate acceptance. It is not necessary
to prove any overt act in respect thereof as an express24 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 25 of 46acceptance is not necessary for completing the transaction of
gift.
17. In Narayani Bhanumathi v. Karthyayani Lelitha Bhai a
learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court stated the law thus:
“If the earlier settlement deed was executed on an assurance
that Defendants 2 and 3 will be looked after, that presupposes
the knowledge of the gift by the donees and an understanding
reached between them at the time of execution of the
settlement deed which could be sufficient to support the plea of
acceptance especially when there is no question of the donee
getting possession of properties since there is reservation of
right to enjoy the property in the doners during their lifetime.
The evidence bearing on the question of acceptance of the gift
deed will have to be appreciated in the background of the
circumstance relating to the execution of such a deed. There may
be cases where slightest evidence of such acceptance would be
sufficient. There may still be cases where the circumstances
themselves eloquently speak to such acceptance. Normally
when a person gifts properties to another and it is not an
onerous gift, one may expect the other to accept such a gift
when once it comes to his knowledge, since normally, any person
would be only too willing to promote his own interest. Maybe in
particular cases there may be peculiar circumstances which may
show that the donee would not have accepted the gift. But these
are rather the exceptions than the rule. It is then only normal to
assume the rule. It is only normal to assume that the donee
would have accepted the gift deed. One would have to look into
the circumstances of the case in order to see whether acceptance
could be read. Mere silence may sometimes be indicative of25 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 26 of 46acceptance provided it is shown that the done knew about the
gift. Essentially, this is a question of fact to be considered on the
background of circumstances of each case.””
35. As regards mode of proof of Execution of Deeds, learned Senior
Counsel relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Dass Jain
(Dead) through LRs v. Sohan Lal (Dead) through LRs (SC) : Law finder Doc
IDA # 15129, wherein it is held that:-
“13. We shall first deal with the proof of the certified copy of the
deed of mortgage. So far as the mortgage deed is concerned, the
plaintiff filed a certified copy and called upon the defendant to
file the original. The defendant refused to do so. The plaintiff,
therefore, proceeded to file the certified copy as secondary
evidence under sub-clause (a) of Section 65 of the Evidence Act.
This was certainly permissible. The mortgage is a document
required to be attested by two attestors under Section 59 of the
Transfer of Property Act and in this case it is attested by two
attestors. The mode of proof of documents required to be
attested is contained in Sections 68 to 71 of the Evidence Act.
Under Section 68, if the execution of a document required to be
attested is to be proved, it will be necessary to call an attesting
witness. if alive and subject to the process of Court and is
capable of giving evidence. But in case the document is
registered – then except in the case of a will – it is not necessary
to call an attesting witness, unless the execution has been
specifically denied by the person by whom it purports to have
been executed. This is clear from Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
It reads as follows:
26 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 27 of 46“Section 68: If a document is required by law to be attested, it
shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness atleast
has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there
be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the
Court and capable of giving evidence :
Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting
witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a
will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions
of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, unless its execution by the
person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically
denied.”…”
36. As regards undue influence, learned Senior Counsel relies upon
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raja Ram Vs. Jai Prakash Singh &
Others (2019) 8 SCC 701, wherein it is held that:-
“10. The deceased undisputedly was over 80 years and above in
age. The plaintiff pleaded that by reason of age and sickness, the
deceased was unable to move and walk, with deteriorated
eyesight due to cataract. The mental capacity of the deceased
was impaired. The Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha
Aiyar, 3rd Edn., reprint, 2009 defines impairment in relation to
a human being as total or partial loss of a body function, total or
partial loss of a part of the body, malfunction of a part of the
body and malfunction or disfigurement of a part of the body.
Except for a bald statement in the plaint that the deceased was
mentally impaired there is no evidence whatsoever of his mental
status. There can be no presumption with regard to the same
only because of old age to equate it with complete loss of mental
faculties by senility or dementia. Ageing is a process which27 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 28 of 46affects individuals differently at distinguishable ages. The sale
deed executed by the deceased in favour of one Babu Ram and
Munshi Lal two years earlier in 1968 has not been assailed by
the appellant on the ground that the deceased was devoid of the
power of reasoning, because of mental impairment. There is no
evidence of any such rapid deterioration in the condition of the
deceased in these two years.
11. The deceased on account of his advanced age may have been
old and infirm with a deteriorating eyesight, and unable to move
freely. There is no credible evidence that he was bedridden.
Hardness of hearing by old age cannot be equated with deafness.
The plaintiff, despite being the son of the deceased, except for
bald statement in the plaint, has not led any evidence in support
of his averments. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased
appeared before the Sub-Registrar for registration. It demolishes
the entire case of the plaintiff that the deceased was bedridden.
He had put his thumb impression in presence of the Sub-
Registrar after the sale deed had been read over and explained
to him. The deceased had acknowledged receipt of the entire
consideration in presence of the Sub-Registrar only after which
the deed was executed and registered. The wife of the deceased
had accompanied him to the office of the Sub-Registrar. The sale
deed being a registered instrument, there shall be a presumption
in favour of the defendants. The onus for rebuttal lay on the
plaintiff which he failed to discharge. Notwithstanding the
finding of enmity between PW 2 and PW 3 with original
Defendant 2, the first appellate court erred in relying upon these
two witnesses by holding that they were independent witnesses
and convincing. DW 1, though related was a witness to the sale28 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 29 of 46deed. His evidence in support of the events before the Sub-
Registrar therefore has to be accepted. The plaintiff could have
led evidence in rebuttal of the Sub-Registrar but he did not do so.
12. That leads us to the question of undue influence. The
pleadings in the plaint are completely bereft of any details or
circumstances with regard to the nature, manner or kind of
undue influence exercised by the original defendants over the
deceased, A mere bald statement has been made attributed to
the infirmity of the deceased. We have already held that the
deceased was not completely physically and mentally
incapacitated. There can be no doubt that the original
defendants were in a fiduciary relationship with the deceased.
Their conduct in looking after the deceased and his wife in old
age may have influenced the thinking of the deceased. But that
per se cannot lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the
original defendants were therefore in a position to dominate the
will of the deceased or that the sale deed executed was
unconscionable. The onus would shift upon the original
defendants under Section 16 of the Contract Act read with
Section 111 of the Evidence Act, as held in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh
Singh, only after the plaintiff would have established a prima
facie case. The wife of the deceased was living with him and had
accompanied him to the office of the Sub-Registrar. The plaintiff
has not pleaded or led any evidence that the wife of the
deceased was also completely dominated by the original
defendants.”
37. As regards burden of proof was on plaintiff to prove undue
influence, learned Senior Counsel relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
29 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 30 of 46
Court in Bellachi v. Pakeeran, (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # 188051, wherein it
is held that:-
“13. A concurrent finding of fact has also been arrived at that
the appellant was not a person wholly incapable of
understanding things. It was furthermore held that the plaintiff
had sufficient funds for her own treatment as also for the
treatment of her husband and thus the story that she was made
to believe that she would be rendered financial assistance by
some banks so as to enable her to meet the expenses for her
husband’s treatment, is not correct.
It was, furthermore, noticed that her husband as also her
daughter (PW-2) were Government employees.
The said concurrent findings of the fact ordinarily are binding on
the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100
of the Civil Procedure Code.
This Court in Afsar Sheikh and Anr. v. Soleman Bibi and Ors.
reported in [1976 (2) SCC 142] held as under :
“4. In his written statement, Afsar defendant denied
the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. He
averred that his grandmother was the sister of the
plaintiff’s mother. The defendant’s father died when he
was an infant. The plaintiff brought him up as a son. Since
his very infancy, the defendant has been living with the
plaintiff, managing his affairs and treating him as his
father. The defendant further stated that the plaintiff has
transferred 10 to 12 bighas of land to his natural son and
an equal area to his second wife. Out of love and affection,
the plaintiff conferred a similar benefit on the defendant
and voluntarily executed the hiba-bil-ewaz after receiving
from the donee a dhoti as a symbolic consideration
therefor. He denied that the plaintiff at the time of the gift
was too old and infirm. According to him, the plaintiff was
30 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 31 of 46
not more than 75 years of age. He further averred that he
was in possession of the suit lands ever since the execution
of the hiba.”
It was observed :
“20. It is well-settled that a question whether a
person was in a position to dominate the will of another
and procured a certain deed by undue influence, is a
question of fact, and a finding thereon is a finding of fact,
and if arrived at fairly, in accordance with the procedure
prescribed. is not liable to be reopened in second appeal
(Satgur Prasad v. Har Narain Das; Ladli Prasad Jaiswal v.
Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. ).”
XXX
16. In a given case it is possible to hold that when an illiterate,
pardanashin woman executes a deed of sale, the burden would
be on the vendee to prove that it was the deed of sale was a
genuine document. It is, however, a registered document. It
carries with it a presumption that it was executed in accordance
with law. Again a concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at
that she was not an illiterate woman or she was incapable of
understanding as to what she had done.
XXX
18. Furthermore both the courts below have held that the plaint
does not contained any particulars of undue influence, fraud etc.
The law does not envisage raising of a presumption in favour of
undue influence. A party alleging the same must prove the same
subject of course to just exceptions.
In M. Rangasamy v. Rengammal and Ors. [(2003) 7 SCC 683],
this court has held as under:-
“Further, a perusal of the plaint shows that the
execution of Exhibits B-6 and B-7 has, in fact, not been
disputed by the plaintiffs. The case set up by them is that31 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:48 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 32 of 46the first defendant, exercising dominating influence over
his grandmother, got the two settlement deeds executed
from her exploiting her old age, dim eyesight and mental
condition. It has been further pleaded that the first
defendant had a fiduciary relationship with his
grandmother and, therefore, though normally it would be
for a person who pleads undue influence to establish 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.”
The said decision will apply in all fours in this case.”
38. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be dismissed
being meritless.
39. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have
heard learned Senior counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find
no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.
40. Locus:
The plaintiff had claimed title in the suit land on the positive
assertion that suit land is Joint Hindu Family coparcenary land; and therefore,
plaintiff by virtue of his birth is co-owner being coparcener along with Karta/
defendant no.2. Once the appellant has dropped this plea that the suit
property is ancestral, the very foundation of his claim to the suit property as
coparcener, goes. The very basis on which the appellant had brought the suit,
no longer exists. Resultantly, the appellant cannot maintain the suit being
stranger to the impugned transactions/documents.
32 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:49 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 33 of 46
41. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the Gift Deeds and the Sale
Deed have been challenged by the appellant only on the basis of claiming
right in the suit property as coparcener. The entire claim of the plaintiff over
the suit property is based on the contention that the suit property is Joint
Hindu Family coparcenary in nature. Once the said claim is withdrawn, the
plaintiff becomes a stranger to the transaction. Resultantly, there is no
lis/cause of action; and plaintiff can, therefore, no longer maintain the suit.
The entire edifice on which the plaintiff has built his case is, that the suit
property being coparcenary, plaintiff has right in it by birth. However, once
the said claim itself is withdrawn by the plaintiff, he is left with no cause of
action being a stranger to the registered Deeds. Therefore, plaintiff has no
locus to challenge the same. There being no lis to the action, the suit is not
maintainable. The principle in law is that competence to file suit is with one
who has cause of action. Without cause of action, there is no lis. Once the
pleading regarding ancestral nature of the property has been dropped, his
entire claim to the suit property falls. Thus, suit of the appellant is prima facie
not maintainable.
42. It is also to be noted that Darshan Singh/ defendant no.2,
executant of the impugned documents has not challenged the Gift Deeds or
the Sale Deed. On the contrary, vide his written statement Darshan Singh has
resisted the suit of the plaintiff and has denied all his averments made in the
plaint. Rather, Darshan Singh has actively participated in the registration of
33 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:49 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 34 of 46
the Deeds etc. In this situation, with regard to Locus, reference be made to
judgment of this Court relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the
defendant No.1 in Jarnail Singh supra, wherein it is held that:-
“11. The learned first appellate Court has rightly observed that
the said sale deed was executed on September 3, 1973 by
Parampal Singh acting as a attorney of Harnam Kaur. Harnam
Kaur died on April 20, 1975. During her life time, Harnam Kaur
never challenged the aforesaid sale deed executed by her
attorney. No grievance was ever made by her with regard to the
non-receipt of the consideration. Thus, when Harnam Kaur had
never made any grievance with regard to the validity of the
aforesaid sale deed, then it is definitely not open to defendant,
Jarnail Singh, who is stranger to the said sale deed to claim that
the said sale deed was without any consideration or was invalid
in any other manner. As a matter of fact, no meaningful
argument has been addressed by the learned counsel appearing
for the defendant-appellant to show that the said sale deed
suffers from any infirmity.”
(Emphasis is mine)
43. Another judgment of this Court in Parkash Kaur v. Surjit Kaur
(P&H) : Law Finder Doc ID # 242631, is also relevant, wherein it is held:-
“11. Since the whole case of the plaintiff/appellant is that there
was no consideration or lack of consideration in the sale deed
dated 23.04.1993, in the case of State of Punjab (supra) this
Court has held that in case of lack of consideration, a stranger to
the sale deed cannot challenge the sale on the ground that it is34 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:49 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 35 of 46without consideration or a paper transaction. Admittedly,
Jaswant Kaur lived for another 1-= years after the execution of
the sale deed (Ex.D1) and never challenged it by herself during
her lifetime.”
(Emphasis is mine)
Possession:
44. The present Civil Suit is not maintainable also in view of the fact
that it is established on record that the plaintiff is not in possession of the
suit property. A declaratory suit without seeking relief of possession is not
maintainable. In this regard, it may be pointed out that along with the suit,
plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking
ad interim injunction. The defendant No.1 in its reply to the said application
had denied possession of the appellant over the suit property. Accordingly,
the Court had appointed Local Commission to determine the correct position
on spot. The Local Commissioner has submitted his Report (Ex.D13 – at page
331 of the LCR) as per which the defendant No.1 was found to be in
possession of the suit property. Local Commissioner has categorically
reported that he had visited the spot on 02.05.2012 along with Photographer
after giving prior notice to all parties. It is to be noted that the Memo of
Presence (Ex.D14 – available at page 333 of the LCR) of the said Inspection is
duly signed by Darshan Singh, below which in his own hand he has also
written ‘defendant No.2’. Even on the Memo of Notice (Ex.D15 at page 335
of the LCR) Darshan Singh has appended his signatures and ‘defendant No.2’.
35 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:49 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 36 of 46
Thus, inspection of the suit property was carried out by the Local
Commissioner in the presence of defendant No.2. The plaintiff had refused
to affix his signatures upon the attendance sheet of the said report.
45. The photographs (Ex.D1 to Ex.D11 – at pages 183-193 of the LCR),
which were taken at the time of Inspection on 02.5.2012 also clearly show
the possession of the Dera. The photographs show that the Board of “Radha
Swami Satsang Beas Fatehpur-Pundri” is installed on the land. The said
photographs also reflect the presence of Sangat at the spot in large numbers;
and that Satsang and other Dera activities are going on. It is not disputed that
these photographs were taken on the date of inspection i.e. 02.05.2012. Thus,
photographs were taken in the presence of Darshan Singh. Clearly therefore,
Darshan Singh is an active participant in Dera activities which are being
carried on, on the suit land. Consequentially, in the face of all this evidence,
the plaintiff had withdrawn his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC
as not pressed vide order dated 26.02.2013 (at page 635 of the LCR).
46. It is also to be noted that even in his evidence, plaintiff has not
denied these photographs. In his deposition as PW1 (at page 512 of the LCR),
plaintiff has stated that:-
“I have seen photographs Ex.D1 to Ex. D11 (Photographs
objected to). These photographs are of same Dera, which land
was given in donation Voltd. I have 1/3 share in the said land of
Dera and 1/3rd share in the irrigation source of water. I have no
knowledge in how much area Dera is constructed. The Dera at36 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:49 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 37 of 46present are cultivating 8 Acres of the land. I have no knowledge
for how much period, Dera is cultivating the said land. I have no
knowledge if I have told my counsel about the factum of
cultivation of land by Dera and construction of Dera at the time
of institution of the suit …”
47. Similarly, mother of the plaintiff while appearing as PW2 has
admitted in her cross-examination (at page 529 of the LCR) that Dera/
defendant No.1 is cultivating the suit land, wherein she has stated as follows:-
“There was separate land in the name of my husband and my
son. The land that my husband donated to the defendant No. 1,
No dera (ashram) is built there. The Secretary of the Dera
namely Taran Singh cultivates that land. I do not know if he
cultivates 8 Acres of land or less than that. I still keep vising Dera.
I have been initiated from defendant Dera. My son, daughters,
and husband have been initiated from defendant No.1 Dera.
Nowadays, where there is dera, the value there is 40-50 lakh
rupees per acre….”
48. Even PW3, who is an aunt of the plaintiff has admitted in her
cross-examination that:-
“I am summoned witness. Plaintiff had called me to testify. I also
visit to defendant Dera. No misdeeds happen in Dera. It had
been four years since Dera has been built in the dispute land.”
49. From the above oral and documentary evidence, it is irrevocably
established on record that the defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit
land. It therefore, follows that simplicitor suit for declaration, without
37 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:49 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 38 of 46
seeking relief of possession is not maintainable. Despite acknowledging
possession of the Dera over the suit land, the plaintiff had failed to amend
the suit and include consequential relief of possession. It needs no
belabouring that as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, simplicitor suit
for declaration without seeking consequential relief of possession is not
maintainable. Thus, on account of this legal infirmity as well, suit of the
plaintiff was not maintainable.
50. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil
Trust Virudhunagar v. Chandran, (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # 828440, wherein
it is held that:-
“36. The plaintiff, who was not in possession, had in the suit
claimed only declaratory relief along with mandatory injunction.
Plaintiff being out of possession, the relief of recovery of
possession was a further relief which ought to have been
claimed by the plaintiff. The suit filed by the plaintiff for a mere
declaration without relief of recovery of possession was clearly
not maintainable and the trial court has rightly dismissed the
suit. The High Court neither adverted to the above finding of the
trial court nor has set aside the above reasoning given by the
trial court for holding the suit as not maintainable. The High
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. could
not have reversed the decree of the courts below without
holding that the above reasoning given by the courts below was38 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:49 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 39 of 46legally unsustainable. We, thus, are of the view that the High
Court committed error in decreeing the suit.”
51. Also, to judgment of this Court in Jeeto v. Santa Singh, (P&H)
2006(2) RCR(Civil) 547, wherein it is held that:-
“7. A perusal of the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 clearly lays down that where the plaintiff has not
sought the consequential relief of possession in a suit for
declaration then such a declaration shall not be granted to the
plaintiff.
8. In the present case the plaintiff/appellant has not sought the
consequential relief of possession and, hence, a mere suit for
declaration is not maintainable. As per the evidence led by the
parties it is also clear that the possession of the suit land was not
with the plaintiff on the date of filing of the suit.”
52. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vasantha v. Rajalakshmi
@ Rajam (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2493976, has held that:-
“24. We now proceed to examine whether the suit for
declaration simpliciter was maintainable in view of Section 34 of
the SRA, 1963.
XXX
33. Adverting to the facts of the present case, on a perusal of the
plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff was aware that the
appellant herein was in possession of the suit property and
therefore it was incumbent upon him to seek the relief which
follows. Plaintiff himself has stated that defendant no. 1 was in
possession of the subject property and had sought to transfer
possession of the same to defendant no.2, thereby establishing
that he himself was not in possession of the subject property. We39 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:49 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 40 of 46are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel
for the respondent on this issue. We note that after the death of
the life-estate holder in 2004, there was no attempt made by the
original plaintiff to amend the plaint to seek the relief of
recovery of possession. It is settled law that amendment of a
plaint can be made at any stage of a suit 34), even at the second
appellate stage.”
53. From the discussion on the above two legal issues it is clear that
suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable. From the above it is also clear that
Darshan Singh had participated in the inspection of Local Commission and
had not questioned the report, and the factum of possession of defendant
No.1 over the suit property as proved above. Even otherwise, in the Gift Deed
dated 21.02.2011 (Ex.DW2/B), Gift Deed dated 06.05.2011 (Ex.DW2/A) and
Sale Deed dated 29.09.2011 (Ex.DW2/C), there is a clear recital to the effect
that possession had been handed over by defendant No.2 to defendant No.1.
Validity:
54. As regards the validity of the impugned documents, learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant has been at great pains to establish that
there existed a fiduciary relationship between the defendants in which the
defendant No.1 had dominance over defendant No.2. To make good his point
learned Senior Counsel has relied heavily upon the averments made in the
Gift Deeds and Sale Deed by defendant no.2 to the effect that he is a ‘strong
follower’ of the Dera. Plaintiff has also relied upon the admission of this fact
by the defendant no.1 in its written statement. Only on this basis, plaintiff
40 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:49 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 41 of 46
has sought to contend that defendant no.1 had exercised undue influence
upon Darshan Singh. Needless to say, the said assertion is tenuous to say the
least. No specific incident, in fact not even one specific incident has been
mentioned as to when, where, how, and in what manner has the defendant
no.1 exercised in undue influence upon Darshan Singh. Only a bald assertion
has been made that undue influence was exercised, which is not backed by
any material whatsoever. The plaint has failed to disclose as to by whom, in
what manner, when, where, was undue influence exercised by defendant
No.1 over defendant No.2. All that has been stated in the plaint is that
defendant No.2 had been “hypnotised” by some followers of Dera in the
name of religion, God and spirituality and he was greatly unduly influenced
and misrepresented by Dera followers and he was cheated. Besides lack of
specificity, there is even no evidence whatsoever on record to substantiate
the said averment. Thus, contention of the plaintiff that suit property was
taken by defendant no.1 by exercising undue influence over Darshan Singh
remains entirely unsubstantiated.
55. The ld. Senior counsel for the plaintiff has then sought to make
this connection by submitting that the defendant no.1 being a spiritual
organization and Darshan Singh being its ‘strong follower’ the former had
dominance and control over the latter. Though there is nothing whatsoever
on record to remotely indicate anything to this effect, however, ld. Senior
Counsel has sought to prove this by relying upon judgment of Rajasthan High
41 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:49 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 42 of 46
Court in Munna Kumari supra (which has further relied upon judgment of
the Supreme Court in Subhash Chander (Supra), which has referred to
judgment of the Supreme Court Ladli Prasad Jaiswal (Supra)) wherein it is
held that “Generally speaking the relation of solicitor and client, trustee and
cesti que trust, spiritual adviser and devotee, medical attendant and patient,
parent and child are those in which such a presumption arises. Section 16(2)
of the Contract Act shows that such a situation can arise wherever the donee
stands in a fiduciary relationship to the donor or holds a real or apparent
authority over him”.
56. It is my clear view that the reliance of the plaintiff upon the said
general observation in a judgment is flimsy and tenuous to say the least. First
and foremost the said general observation cannot be taken as a
pronouncement of law. Moreover, a spiritual adviser is distinct from spiritual
organisation. Furthermore, an artificial legal entity cannot be in a fiduciary
relationship with a natural person.
57. It may be also be pointed out that all the judgments cited by the
appellant are of no help to the appellant as each and everyone of those
judgments are distinguishable on facts and law. In case of Philip Lukka
(supra), the facts of the case were entirely different inasmuch as in the said
case categoric and specific averments had been made in the plaint, which
were buttressed by cogent and comprehensive evidence to the effect that a
particular priest had exercised undue influence over the donee. In the said
42 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:49 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 43 of 46
case specific instances had been mentioned when the said influence was
exercised and the places where the said influence was exercised. In the
present case, none of those facts apply. Rather to the contrary the donee in
the present case is supporting the donation. Same is the situation with the
case of Keshav (supra) relied upon by the appellant wherein Hardei, the
donee had specifically denied the execution of the Gift Deed therein before
the Revenue Authority. That is not so in the present case. As such, appellant
can derive no benefit from the said relied-upon judgments as the same are
wholly distinguishable on facts and law.
Certified Copies
58. As regards contention of the appellant that only certified copies
of the documents were produced, the same is also liable to be rejected as
the validity of the impugned documents stands duly proven from the
evidence of DW2 who has stated as follows:-
“Stated that I am working as a Clerk in the office of the Sub
Registrar, Pundri. I have come with the record regarding
document No. 415/1 dated 06-05-11, 3453/1 dated 21-02-11,
and 4221/1 dated 29-09-11. Ex. DW2/A to Ex. DW2/C are the
certified copies issued by our office. They are correct according
to the record….”
59. Even more importantly execution of the registered documents
has not been denied by its executant, defendant No.2. In this view of the
43 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:49 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 44 of 46
matter, as per Section 68 of the Evidence Act, defendant No.1 is not required to
‘prove’ the execution of the registered documents by examining attesting
witnesses etc. Section 68 of the Evidence Act clearly stipulates that except for a
Will, when a document is attested by two persons “and the execution is not
challenged” there is no requirement to call upon the attesting witnesses or the
scribe of the document to prove the same. Plea of undue influence was available
only with defendant No.2 who could have stated that documents were got
executed from defendant No.2 under undue influence but it is not a disputed
fact that till date all these three documents have not been challenged by
defendant No.2 on any ground of fraud, undue influence etc. Perusal of written
statement as well as cross-examination shows that it is apparently clear that he
has duly shown his willingness and consent at the time of execution of Gift
Deeds and Sale Deed. Merely for the reason that defendant No.2 was a devotee
it cannot be said that any kind of undue influence was there at the time of
execution of Gift Deeds and Sale deed.
Unsound Mind
60. As regards the allegation of the plaintiff that Darshan Singh was of
unsound mind, there is not a smidgen of medical evidence brought on record
by the plaintiff to this effect. Again, except for a bald averment, plaintiff had not
adduced any evidence to prove by any record/document that any medical
treatment is being given to defendant No.2 to prove that he was not in fit state
of mind. PW3/real sister of defendant No.2 categorically deposed that
defendant No.2 performs his daily routines properly. When
44 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:49 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 45 of 46
defendant No.2/donor has not raised any objection till date as to validity of
Gift Deeds and Sale Deed, the plaintiff is not competent to challenge the
same by taking frivolous grounds.
61. Before parting, it may also be pointed out that both the District
Courts have returned concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the suit
land was not ancestral in nature. Besides it may also be mentioned that
plaintiff in his cross-examination as PW 1 has admitted that he is living
separately from his father/defendant No.2 for the last 15 years. Similar,
deposition has been made by PW2/mother of plaintiff and wife of Darshan
Singh. Plaintiff/PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that his sisters i.e. the
daughters of defendant No.2, had never challenged the Gift Deeds and Sale
Deed in any Court of law. Therefore, this fact negates the averment of
jointness of family between plaintiff and defendant No.2. Rather, there is
categoric finding of fact that it is crystal clear that suit properties were self-
acquired and defendant no.2 being absolute owner of the same was fully
competent to alienate the same in whatever manner he likes. Hence, he was
fully competent to execute Gift Deeds and Sale Deed. The plaintiff has no
locus standi to challenge the alienation made by defendant No.2. It is but
trite that if the suit property was ancestral then it could not devolve upon the
plaintiff during the life-time of his father. In any event, stranger to a sale deed
cannot challenge that sale deed is without consideration. The defendant no.2
did not challenge those Gift Deeds, Sale deed during his life time. No police
45 of 46
::: Downloaded on – 21-03-2026 08:46:49 :::
RSA-1114-2025 Page 46 of 46
complaint is filed by defendant No.2 during his life time. Defendant No.2 never
filed any suit during his life time seeking cancellation of Gift Deeds and Sale
Deed. There was a gap of at least three months between every Deed. If
defendant No.2 was hypnotised, after executing first Deed there was no need
for him to execute other Deeds. No evidence has been led by plaintiff to prove
any fraud.
62. The argument of plaintiff that defendant No.1 not being a juristic
person was not entitled to enter into any transaction with defendant No.2, is
beyond pleading. There is no pleading in the plaint that defendant No.1 is an
unregistered society and therefore not competent to enter into any transaction.
Revenue record show that suit property is recorded in the name of defendant
No.1. Mother of plaintiff PW2 admitted that Dera is existing upon suit property
of the last 4-5 years. The plaintiff also admitted that at present defendant No.1
is in cultivating possession of 8 acres of land. Therefore, it makes it clear that
Gift Deeds were duly accepted by defendant No.1. The above findings and
discussion are further supported by the voluminous case law on each issue,
cited by ld. Senior counsel for the defendant no.1.
63. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, present Second
Appeal stands dismissed.
64. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
13.03.2026 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes
46 of 46
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2026 08:46:49 :::
[ad_1]
Source link
