Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 324 (ORI)

Satyabhama Satpathy v. Narana Mishra

2013-08-21

M.M.DAS

body2013
JUDGMENT : M.M. DAS, J. The Appellants have filed the aforesaid appeal challenging the Judgment dated 5.4.2004 passed in T.A. No. 54 of 1994 by the Learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Bhadrak. 2. The facts reveal that the Appellants as Plaintiffs filed T.S. No. 81 of 1987-I seeking a decree for declaration, declaring the sale-deed executed by their deceased father (Trilochan Mishra) in favour of the Defendant (Respondent) to be void on the ground that the said sale-deed has been obtained by exercise of undue influence. The Plaintiffs also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction. The case of the Plaintiffs is that during the last days of the life of their father Trilochan Mishra, who was ill & under the care & custody of the Defendant (Respondent), who was none, other than his nephew, the Defendant taking advantage of his old age & exercising undue influence, got the disputed sale-deed executed by him when he was in an unconscious state of mind. It was further pleaded by them that their deceased .father was never in want of money &, as such, had no legal necessity to sell the suit land. Instead of using the phrase 'undue influence', the Plaintiffs mentioned in the plaint that the sale-deed was obtained by practicing fraud. The Defendant Respondent in his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint specifically contended that the suit is not maintainable. 3. The Learned Trial Court on consideration of the rival pleadings framed as many as ten issues, out of which, issue No.6 was "is the sale-deed of Defendant from Trilochan Mishra valid, genuine, duly executed & registered & for consideration", No specific issue was framed with regard to undue influence or fraud. After trial of the suit, with regard to the aforesaid issue No.6, the Learned Trial Court found the transaction of sale to have been vitiated with fraud & in reaching such conclusion, the Learned Trial Court placed reliance on the fact of the old age & suffering of late Trilochan Mishra & certain other circumstances. The Learned Trial Court ultimately decreed the suit filed by the Appellants-Plaintiffs. The Defendant Respondent challenged the said Judgment & decree in T.A. No. 54 of 1994. The Learned lower Appellate Court came to the finding that the case actually involves the issue of undue influence & the word "fraud" has been inappropriately used by the Plaintiffs. The Learned Trial Court ultimately decreed the suit filed by the Appellants-Plaintiffs. The Defendant Respondent challenged the said Judgment & decree in T.A. No. 54 of 1994. The Learned lower Appellate Court came to the finding that the case actually involves the issue of undue influence & the word "fraud" has been inappropriately used by the Plaintiffs. Finding that no issue of undue influence has been framed by the Learned Trial Court, came to the conclusion that in view of non-framing of such issue, the parties have not led evidence upon the same & the said issue was the crux of the matter. Thus holding, the Learned Appellate Court remanded the case. In the remand order, the Learned Appellate Court held in paras 7, 8 & 9 as follows:- "7. Perused the Learned lower Court record. On a close & careful reading of the pleadings of the parties, it is crystal clear that the Plaintiffs have averred that as there was no chance of cure of Trilochan from cancer as per the advice of the treating doctors of S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, they brought back Trilochan to his native village, so that he can breath his last in his own house. They have also further pleaded that in this way Trilochan was seriously ill in his last days of life & bed-ridden & as the Plaintiffs were married they left Triloch8n under the care & custody of the Defendant as it was not possible on their part to remain all the times in the house of Trilochan. It is also averred that during this period when Trilochan was in the care & custody of the Defendant who is none other than his nephew a fiduciary relationship developed between them & taking advantage of that relationship exercising undue influence the Defendant obtained a registered sale deed. The aforesaid plea of the Plaintiffs have been stoutly denied by the Defendant. Thus, the tenor of pleadings clearly discloses a case of undue influence & the word 'fraud' has been inappropriately mentioned in the pleadings of the Plaintiffs. On a careful & in-depth assessment of the evidence & Judgment of the Learned lower Court, I find that the Learned lower Court has not bestowed its attention to this aspect & no issue on this aspect has been framed which has escaped the notice of the Court. So on this point. On a careful & in-depth assessment of the evidence & Judgment of the Learned lower Court, I find that the Learned lower Court has not bestowed its attention to this aspect & no issue on this aspect has been framed which has escaped the notice of the Court. So on this point. a specific issue ought to have been framed by the Learned lower Court. In absence of such an issue the parties did not lead any on that line which has resulted in side-lining the main issue by the lower Court. Exercise undue influence is the crux of the matter & the fate of the suit hangs in decision of this material point. Non-framing of such a vital issue has caused prejudiced of these parties. So the impugned Judgment & decree is to be set aside. For the right decision of the suit the following issue is to be decided by the Learned Trial Court in addition of the issue already on record. "Whether the registered sale deed dated 28.2.85 was obtained by Defendant by exercising undue influence over Trilochan Mishra ? 8. The Learned Trial Court is directed to take required evidence on this issue & decided all the issues, i.e., issue already on record & new issue of the suit taking all the evidence on record into account & dispose of the suit afresh. The Learned lower Court is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed & the impugned Judgment & decree dated 12.8.94 & 26.8.94 respectively of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak is hereby set aside. The suit is remanded back to the lower Court to dispose of it as afresh as indicated above. The parties are directed to appear before the Learned lower Court on 29.4.2004 to receive necessary direction". The Appellants being aggrieved have preferred this SAO under the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1 (u) C.P.C. The remand order of the Learned Appellate Court though appears to be one under Order 41, Rule 23 - A C. P. C., but, in fact, the Learned Appellate Court in the impugned Judgment, as quoted above, has come to the conclusion that due to non-framing of an issue with regard to undue influence which is a vital issue, the same has caused prejudice to the parties. This Court, therefore, finds that the Learned Appellate Court should not have set aside the Judgment & decree bf the Learned Trial Court in its entirety & remanded the matter back to the Learned Trial Court for fresh adjudication. 4. In the circumstances of the case, the Learned lower Appellate Court should have exercised its power under Order 41, Rule 25 C.P.C. which reads thus:- "25. Where Appellate Court may frame issues & refer them for trial to Court whose decree appealed from - Where the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted to frame or try any issue, or to determine any question of fact, which appears to the Appellate Court essential to the right decision of the suit upon the merits the Appellate Court may, if necessary, frame issues, & refer the same for trial to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, & in such case shall direct such Court to take the additional evidence required; & such Court shall proceed to try such issues, & shall return the evidence to the Appellate Court together with its findings thereon & the reasons therefor (within such time as may be fixed by the Appellate Court or extended by it from time to time)". 5. In view of the above conclusion, the Judgment & decree of the Learned lower Appellate Court stands set aside. 5. In view of the above conclusion, the Judgment & decree of the Learned lower Appellate Court stands set aside. This Court, therefore, directs that in accordance with the provisions of Rule 25 of Order 41 C.P.C. the Learned lower Appellate Court shall keep the appeal record with it & the Learned Trial Court shall proceed to try the issue framed by the leaned lower Appellate Court in paragraph 7 of the Judgment as quoted above & shall return the evidence to the Learned lower Appellate Court together with its findings thereon & the reasons therefor within a period of six months from today, On return of the findings thus recorded by the leaned Trial Court along with its findings, to the Learned Appellate Court, the same shall form a part of the record in the suit & the Learned lower Appellate Court thereafter shall proceed with the appeal in accordance with Rule 26 of Order 41 C.P.C. & finally dispose of the appeal within a further period of three months from the date of return of the evidence along with its findings by the Learned Trial Court to the Learned lower Appellate Court. 6. The SAO is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances without cost. The interim order passed on 6.10.2004 stands vacated. Appeal allowed.