Plea of non est factum is unavailable where misrepresentation concerns document contents rather than its character.

The Plaintiff (Respondent) entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 19.09.2012 with the Defendant (Appellant) for the purchase of the Defendant’s 1/4th undivided share in land situated at Village Badu Sarai, Delhi, for a total consideration of Rs. 77,86,500/-

The Plaintiff paid the full consideration through cheques and cash, which the Defendant acknowledged via receipts and the execution of several documents, including a General Power of Attorney (GPA), Special Power of Attorney (SPA), and a Will

Execution of the Sale Deed was delayed due to ongoing consolidation proceedings in the village, which concluded in 2015

On 13.04.2015, the Defendant issued a notice cancelling the SPA, alleging that a fraud had been played upon him by mentioning a sale consideration lower than the orally agreed amount of Rs. 3,20,00,000/-

The Plaintiff filed a suit for Specific Performance and Permanent Injunction. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff on 08.04.2024, leading to this appeal

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance directing the Defendant to execute the registered Sale Deed?

2. Whether the Plaintiff committed fraud by mentioning a lesser sale consideration in the documents?

3. Whether the suit was maintainable given that consolidation proceedings were pending at the time of the agreement?

4. Whether the plea of non est factum (it is not my deed) is available to the Defendant regarding the sale consideration?

The Court applied the common law doctrine of non est factum, as interpreted in Foster v. Mackinnon (1869), which allows a party to avoid a document if they were deceived as to its actual contents or character

It further relied on the Supreme Court of India’s rulings in Ningawwa v. Byrappa (1968) and Bismillah v. Janeshwaar Prasad (1990), establishing that a distinction exists between fraudulent misrepresentation of the character of a document (rendering it void) and misrepresentation of its contents (rendering it merely voidable)

The Court also applied the principle from Saunders v. Anglia Building Society (1971), holding that the plea is unavailable to those who sign without taking the trouble to understand the document’s general effect

Finally, it reaffirmed the position in Ramathal v. K. Rajamano (2023) regarding the voidability of transactions tainted by content-based fraud

The Court rejected the Appellant’s claim of fraud and the plea of non est factum. It noted that the Defendant admitted his signatures and thumb impressions on the Agreement to Sell, receipts, and other documents during cross-examination

The Court observed that the doctrine of non est factum applies only when there is a fundamental mistake regarding the nature or character of the transaction; here, the dispute pertained only to the amount of consideration (a clause/content), not the nature of the sale itself

Critically, the Defendant remained silent for three years after receiving the full payment of Rs. 77,86,500/- and only raised the plea of fraud in 2015, coinciding with a manifold increase in land prices

The Court found the Defendant’s notice of cancellation did not even mention the alleged price discrepancy, concluding that the refusal to execute the Sale Deed was mala fide and based on market fluctuations rather than actual fraud

Regarding consolidation, the Court held that since proceedings were completed by 2016, there was no bar to the execution of the decree

The Court held that the Plaintiff successfully proved the payment of full consideration and the valid execution of documents. The Defendant failed to establish fraud or the requirements for the plea of non est factum

The Defendant was directed to execute the Sale Deed in favor of the Plaintiff and remained restrained from creating third-party interests in the suit property