TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court sets aside specific performance, finds agreement under undue influence. Declaration and accounts upheld.</h1> <h3>Dalbir Singh alias Vir Singh Versus Dalbir Singh</h3> The court set aside the lower courts' decisions granting specific performance of the agreement to Kartar Singh. The suit for specific performance was ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the agreement dated 23/25.6.1987.2. Entitlement to specific performance of the agreement.3. Allegations of fraud, undue influence, and misrepresentation.4. Entitlement to rendition of accounts for the sale of agricultural produce.5. Execution of the agreement as security for a loan.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Agreement Dated 23/25.6.1987The plaintiff, Kartar Singh, claimed specific performance of an agreement to sell land dated 25.6.1987, alleging that Dalbir Singh alias Vir Singh agreed to sell 5/7 share of land measuring 158 kanals 1 marla for Rs. 20,000 per acre and received Rs. 70,000 as earnest money. Dalbir Singh contested, claiming the agreement was a sham, forged, and intended as security for a loan of Rs. 35,000. He alleged that the agreement was never meant to be a genuine sale but was executed under undue influence and misrepresentation by the commission agents.2. Entitlement to Specific Performance of the AgreementThe court examined whether Kartar Singh was entitled to specific performance of the agreement. It was found that Dalbir Singh alias Vir Singh had executed the agreement under undue influence due to his fiduciary relationship with the commission agents. The court emphasized that Dalbir Singh was a farmer constantly in need of loans from the commission agents, who dominated his will. The courts below had failed to consider the undue influence and fiduciary relationship, leading to the conclusion that the agreement was not a result of free will and volition.3. Allegations of Fraud, Undue Influence, and MisrepresentationDalbir Singh alias Vir Singh alleged that the agreement was a result of fraud, undue influence, and misrepresentation by the commission agents. The court noted that Dalbir Singh was in a vulnerable position, constantly borrowing money from the commission agents, who took unfair advantage of this relationship. The court found that the agreement was not executed with free consent and was intended as security for loans, not as a genuine sale.4. Entitlement to Rendition of Accounts for the Sale of Agricultural ProduceDalbir Singh alias Vir Singh sought a declaration and rendition of accounts from the commission agents for the sale of his agricultural produce from 1985 to 1987. The court found that Dalbir Singh had executed a receipt on 1.3.1988, acknowledging that all dues to the commission agents had been settled. Therefore, no further rendition of accounts was necessary.5. Execution of the Agreement as Security for a LoanThe court examined whether the agreement was executed as security for a loan. It was found that the agreement was indeed intended as security for the repayment of loans advanced by the commission agents to Dalbir Singh. The court noted that Dalbir Singh had executed the agreement under the influence of the commission agents, who were in a position to dominate his will due to their fiduciary relationship.ConclusionThe court set aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, which had granted specific performance of the agreement to Kartar Singh. The court dismissed the suit for specific performance (Civil Suit No. 730 of 1997) and upheld the dismissal of the suit for declaration and rendition of accounts (Civil Suit No. 729 of 1997). The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
