Property Law

Pratima Chowdhury v. Kalpana Mukherjee

AIR 2014 SC 1304; (2014) 4 SCC 196

Facts

Pratima Chowdhury owned Flat No. 5D in a co-operative housing society.
She allowed Partha Mukherjee, the son of Kalpana Mukherjee, to occupy it when he was transferred to Kolkata.
Partha’s employer entered into a lease arrangement under which rent was paid to Pratima.
Letters and an agreement dated November 1992 purportedly transferred Pratima’s membership and ownership to Kalpana.
The documents described the transfer as being without monetary consideration.
Kalpana later claimed that ₹4.29 lakh had been paid through shares transferred by Partha.
Pratima withdrew her transfer request before final completion of the process.
Despite this, the Society transferred the membership and flat to Kalpana.
Pratima challenged the transfer.

Whether the alleged transfer was genuine and supported by reliable evidence.
Who bore the burden of proving the transaction in a relationship of trust and confidence?
Whether Pratima was estopped from challenging the transfer.

Where the beneficiary of a transaction occupies a position of influence or confidence, the beneficiary may bear the burden of proving:
genuineness;
informed consent;
fairness; and
absence of undue influence or misuse of confidence.
Estoppel requires:
a clear representation;
reliance by the other party;
alteration of position based upon that representation; and
resulting prejudice.
Mere execution or production of suspicious documents does not conclusively establish a valid transfer.

Partha enjoyed Pratima’s trust and managed several matters for her.
The disputed letter was written in Partha’s handwriting, though presented as Pratima’s voluntary decision.
The documents stated that no consideration was involved, whereas Kalpana later relied upon alleged consideration of ₹4.29 lakh.
The shares said to constitute consideration were not even owned by Partha when the alleged transfer documents were executed.
Rent continued to be deposited in Pratima’s account after the supposed transfer.
Partha continued to describe Pratima as the landlady.
These facts contradicted the claim that title and possession had already passed to Kalpana.
Because the transaction benefited persons occupying a position of confidence, Kalpana had to prove its fairness and genuineness.
She failed to discharge that burden.
Estoppel also failed because there was no convincing proof that Kalpana had materially altered her position in reliance upon a genuine representation by Pratima.

The purported transfer was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and was not proved to be genuine.
Kalpana was directed to return possession of the flat.
The Society was directed to restore Pratima’s membership, shares and ownership rights.
The orders against Pratima were set aside.