Pratima Chowdhury v. Kalpana Mukherjee and Another
Background
Pratima allowed a trusted relative to occupy her cooperative flat and assist with her affairs. Documents later purported to transfer the flat to his mother, Kalpana, but Pratima disputed their genuineness and withdrew her request before the transfer process concluded. An arbitrator upheld Pratima's claim, while the tribunal and High Court reversed that result.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court restored the arbitrator's award and directed return of possession within one month and prompt restoration of society shares and ownership rights. The later courts had overlooked Pratima's withdrawal, evidence casting doubt on where the documents were executed and conduct still recognising her as the owner. Because the arrangement arose through a relationship of active trust and confidence, the beneficiary had to demonstrate that the transaction was genuine and fair. Kalpana failed to discharge that burden, including her assertion that consideration had been paid.
Lesson Learnt
A person benefiting from a transaction arranged through a position of trust may have to prove its fairness and authenticity. Courts must examine the actual evidence and a timely withdrawal, rather than assume that signed papers end every dispute.