THE 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.
 JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
In the case of “LAKSHMI AMMA V. T. NARAYANA BHATTA 1970(3) SCC
159” it was held that-
Narasimha Bhatta who was of advanced age and was in a state of senility and was
suffering from diabetes and other ailments was taken by respondent No. 1 who had
gone to reside in the house at Sodhankur village a little earlier in a taxi along with
Lakshmi Amma to the Nursing Home in Mangalore where he was got admitted as a
patient. No draft was prepared with the approval or under the directions of Narasimha
Bhatta nor were any instructions given by him to the Scribe in the matter of drawing
up of the document Ext. B-3. An application was also made to the Joint Sub-Registrar,
Mangalore for registering the document at the Nursing Home by someone whose name has
not been disclosed nor has the application been produced to enable the Court to find out the
reasons for which a prayer was made that the registration be done at the Nursing Home.
Lakshmi Amma the wife of Narasimha Bhatta who was the only other close relation present
has stated in categorical terms that the document was got executed by using pressure on
Narasimha Bhatta while he was of an infirm mind and was not in a fit condition to realize
what he was doing. The hospital record was not produced nor did the doctor who attended on
Narasimha Bhatta at the Nursing Home produce any authentic data or record to support their
testimony. Even the will was not produced by respondent No. 1 presumably because it must
have contained recitals about the weak state of health of Narasimha Bhatta. The dispositions
which were made by Ext. B-3 already pointed out before, were all together unnatural and no
Valid reason or explanation has been given why Narasimha Bhatta should have given
everything to respondent 1 and even deprived himself of the right to deal with the property as
an owner during his lifetime. All these facts and circumstances raised a grave suspicion as to
the genuineness of the execution of the document Ext. B-3 and it was for respondent No. 1 to
dispel the same. In our opinion he has entirely failed to do so with the result that the appeal
must succeed and it is allowed with costs in this Court. The decree of the High Court is set
aside and that of the trial Court restored.
 ISSUE OF THE CASE
➢ Several issues were tried between the parties in the trial court. But some questions
which were argued between in the High court and on which the fate of the appeal
depends were these :-
(1) Whether the deed of settlement EXT.B-3 was executed in circumstances was invalid
and void?
(2) Is these was the case of Undue influence?

RELEVANT SECTIONS AND CASES

❖ This case is related to undue influence.

➢ Some relevant section related to the case:-

• Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act 1872:
(1)- ‘Undue Influence’ is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking
advantage of a position of another person. Undue influence differs from duress, which
consist of the intentional use of force to coerce another into a grossly unfair
transaction. Section 16 comes into play when:
i. There lies existing relationship between the contracting parties.
ii. One party dominates the will of other party.
iii. The person dominating the will obtains unfair advantage of the other person.

(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:

Raghunath Prasad Sahu v. Sarju Prasad Sahu 1924 PC 60

The defendant, Sarju Prasad Sahu and his father Mr. Raghunath Prasad Sahu, who
was the plaintiff in this case were equal owners of a massive joint family property.
They had a fight over the property due to which the plaintiff initiated criminal
proceedings against defendant. The defendant mortgaged his properties to the plaintiff
to defend himself and borrowed from the plaintiff about ten thousand rupees at a
compound interest of 24 per cent. In the course of eleven years, the rate of interest
increases elevenfold, viz., RS/-1,12,885. Then the defendant contend that the lender
had taken unconscionable advantage of his situation and there should be presumption
of undue influence, section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
The Lordships observed that no presumption of undue influence could be
brought out from this case and the borrower failed to prove that the lender was in a
position to dominate his will and only relation was proved that of the lender and
borrower. The first requirement of section 16 was not fulfilled and therefore borrower
got no relief.

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.

Mannu Singh v. Umadat Pande (1890) 12 ALL. 523

The plaintiff, an aged person executed a deed of gift in respect of the whole of his
property in the favour of the defendant who was plaintiff’s guru or spiritual adviser.
The only reason for the gift was his desire to secure benefits 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 said deed, the plaintiff applied for the
cancellation of the same.
It was held that because of the fiduciary relationship between the parties, and the
absurdity of the reason given by the plaintiff in the gift deed for the executing the gift
deed, and in the view of the provision contained in section 111, Indian Evidence Act,
the defendant must prove the absence of undue influence and since he failed to prove
the same, the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the cancellation of the deed.

Manali Singhal v. Ravi Singhal AIR 1999 Delhi 156

There was a family settlement between a husband and wife for the payment of
maintenance to the wife as the husband deserted the wife and decided to live
separately. Subsequently, the husband failed to pay the agreed amount of maintenance
to the wife and school fees of their daughter. The said settlement for payment of
maintenance had been made in the presence of equal number of persons representing
both husband and wife and also signed the settlement. The amount of maintenance
payable was written in words and figures in hands of husband.
It was held that the said settlement had been made with the free will of the husband
without any undue influence and he was bound to abide by the settlement.

Wajid Khand v. Raja Ewaz Ali Khan ILR (1891) 18 IA

An old illiterate or pardanashin lady, who was herself incapable of transacting any
business conferred a grant of her substantial property without any valuable
consideration in favour of her confidential managing agent. The Privy Council held
that it was incumbent on the grantee to show that he had made proper use of
confidence reposed by the lady in him and there was no undue influence.
When a person enters into a contract with pardanashin or illiterate lady, the burden of
proof lies on such person and he was to prove that the terms of the contract are fait
and equitable and the term was explained to her and she understood the same and that
she acted on independence advice.
Vinayakappa v. Dullichand AIR 1986 Bom. 193
There was a sale deed of a multi- storeyed building situated on the main road within
the municipal area. Looking to the commercial prosperity of the area, the
consideration was extremely inadequate. Moreover, the seller’s brother continued to
occupy a portion of the property without paying a rent. The buyer of the property did
not pay any taxes on the same for a number of years. It was also found that the seller
and the buyer were having the relationship of borrower and money-leader and thus
had fiduciary relationship.
It was held that presumption of undue influence was there and the transaction was a
loan transaction rather than sale. No title therefore passed to the buyer of the property.
Central University of South Bihar
School of Law and Governance

PROJECT ON CASE :-
LAKSHMI AMMA V. T. NARAYANA BHATTA
1970(3) SCC 159

Under the supervision of :

Dr. PRADIP KUMAR DAS
Associate Professor,
School of Law and Governance,
Central University of South Bihar
Submitted By:
VISHAL CHOUDHARY
BA.LL.B. (Hons.)
Section- ‘B’
2nd Semester (2021-20126)
Enrollment Number – CUSB2113125128
School of Law and Governance
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I, VISHAL CHOUDHARY take extreme pleasure in expressing my profound

gratitude towards my Contract Law- I teacher, Dr. Pradip Kumar Das (Associate
Professor) for providing me with the chance to prepare this project on the topic and
providing me with “LAKSHMI AMMA V. T. NARAYANA BHATTA 1970(3)
SCC 159” his necessary information to complete this project. This project would not
have been possible without the kind support of my teacher, friends, colleagues,
librarians and other resources of e-resource. I would like to sincere thanks to all of
them.
I would also like to thank my parents for providing me everything whatever be
required for the completion of this project.

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

SL.NO. HEADING PAGE NO.

1 TABLE OF THE CONTENT 3

2 INTRODUCTION 4

3 FACTS OF THE CASE 5

4 ISSUE OF THE CASE 6

5 RELEVANT SECTIONS AND CASES 6-8

6 JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE 9

7 RATIO OF THE CASE 10

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

ACT:- Family - undue influence - whether deed of settlement was executed in

circumstances which rendered it invalid and void - deed of settlement was
unnatural and unconscionable document - appellant was person of weak mind
and was incapable of making his own decisions and conducting his affair- no
draft was prepared with approval or under direction of appellant - no valid
reason given why testator should have given everything to respondent and
deprived himself of right to deal with property as owner during his life time -
held, execution of document was not genuine.
 RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE CASE

➢ Good heart test of ratio is: Ratio-decidendi = Material fact + Decision.

➢ It is the point in a case that determine the judgement of that case.

• And in the case of “LAKSHMI AMMA V. T. NARAYANA BHATTA”, the supreme

court had discussed the scope and effect of Free consent and section 16 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872.

• 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.

• When consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence, the agreement is a

contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.

• 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.