NDLI: Ramathal and Ors. Vs. K. Rajamani (dead) Through Lrs. and Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Suit – Plaintiff instituted suit for declaration as the absolute owners of the suit properties and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction on the ground that there was misrepresentation in the General Power of Attorney
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Issue for consideration: The view of the High Court that before theTrial Court, there was neither any pleading nor any issue was framed withregard to the plea of non est factum and as such the First Appellate Courtcommitted an error in determining the said plea in favour of the plaintiff s– Consequently, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.Suit – Plaintiff instituted suit for declaration as the absolute ownersof the suit properties and also for consequential relief of permanentinjunction on the ground that there was misrepresentation in theGeneral Power of Attorney – Dismissed by trial Court – First AppellateCourt decided in favour of plaintiff s – The High Court proceeded torecord a fi nding that there was neither any pleading nor any issueframed regarding the plea of non est factum and set aside the judgmentof the First Appellate Court – Appeal preferred by plaintiff s before theSupreme Court:Held: It is specifi cally averred in the plaint that only intention forexecuting the Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.2 was fordeveloping the property in question into smaller plots and to get necessaryapprovals for the same from the relevant authorities – It is clearly stated inplaint that the plaintiff s were illiterate and had no means to get the aboveexercise carried out and as the defendant No.2 was well versed in dealingwith Government Authorities, he could have helped them in developing theplots – Suit was instituted when plaintiff realized that the defendant hadtwo additional clauses incorporated authorizing him to sell, gift, settle theplots in question and also to execute wherever necessary transfer of Patta Deeds – Plaintiff never intended the same – Issues framed by the trial Court(i) whether the plaintiff s are absolute owner of the suit property and (ii)whether the plaintiff s are in possession and enjoyment of the suit propertywould cover issue of non est factum – From a perusal of the plaint, it ismore than clear that the plea of non est factum was well pleaded, in clearand strict terms – The First Appellate Court had appreciated and analyzedthe evidence on record, both oral and documentary, to record a fi nding thatplea of non est factum was proved – Judgment of the High Court set asideand that of the First Appellate Court maintained. [Paras 16, 25, 26 to 29]Maxim – Non est factum – When plea can be taken:Held: A plea of non est factum can be taken by an executor or signatoryof the deed to plead that the said document is invalid as its executor/signatorywas mistaken about its character at the time of executing/signing it – It isa latin maxim which literally means “it is not the deed” – A plea of non estfactum is a defence available in Contract Law allowing a person to escapethe eff ect of a document which she/he may have executed/signed. [Para 17]Maxim – Non est factum – For successful plea of non-est factumrequires:Held: (i) The person pleading non est factum must belong to “classof persons, who through no fault of their own, are unable to have anyunderstanding of the purpose of the particular document because ofblindness, illiteracy or some other disability” – The disability must be onerequiring the reliance on others for advice as to what they are signing; (ii)“The signatory must have made a fundamental mistake as to the nature ofthe contents of the document being signed”, including its practical eff ects;(iii) The document must have been radically diff erent from one intended tobe signed. [Para 19]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 737
Petitioner	Ramathal And Ors.
Respondent	K. Rajamani (dead) Through Lrs. And Anr.
SCR	[2023] 11 S.C.R. 348
Judgement Date	2023-08-17
Case Number	8830

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Ramathal and Ors. Vs. K. Rajamani (dead) Through Lrs. and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Jyoti Nagar Welfare Association Vs. Amir Chand (dead) Through Lrs & Anr.

N.v. Srinivasa Murthy and Ors. Vs. Mariyamma (dead) By Proposed Lrs. and Ors.

Agnigundala Venkata Ranga Rao Vs. Indukuru Ramachandra Reddy (dead) By Lrs. & Ors.

Jagdish Prasad Patel (dead) Thr. Lrs.& Another Vs. Shivnath & Others

Kesar Bai Vs. Genda Lal & Anr.

Babu Lal & Ors. Vs. M/s Vijay Solvex Ltd. & Ors.

Ravish and Anr. Vs. Smt. R. Bharathi

Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Vs. Bannama (d) By Lrs.

Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) By Lrs. & Ors.

Ramathal and Ors. Vs. K. Rajamani (dead) Through Lrs. and Anr.

Ramathal and Ors. Vs. K. Rajamani (dead) Through Lrs. and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Jyoti Nagar Welfare Association Vs. Amir Chand (dead) Through Lrs & Anr.

N.v. Srinivasa Murthy and Ors. Vs. Mariyamma (dead) By Proposed Lrs. and Ors.

Agnigundala Venkata Ranga Rao Vs. Indukuru Ramachandra Reddy (dead) By Lrs. & Ors.

Jagdish Prasad Patel (dead) Thr. Lrs.& Another Vs. Shivnath & Others

Kesar Bai Vs. Genda Lal & Anr.

Babu Lal & Ors. Vs. M/s Vijay Solvex Ltd. & Ors.

Ravish and Anr. Vs. Smt. R. Bharathi

Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Vs. Bannama (d) By Lrs.

Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) By Lrs. & Ors.

Ramathal and Ors. Vs. K. Rajamani (dead) Through Lrs. and Anr.