RANI & ANR. v. SANTA BALA DEBNATH & ORS.
Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 603; 1970 INSC 216
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: J.C. SHAH , A.N. GROVER
Judgment date:
Case summary
1970 INSC 216. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1970-10-14. RANI & ANR. v. SANTA BALA DEBNATH & ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971] 2 S. C. R. RANI & ANR. v. SANTA BALA DEBNAIB & ORS. October 14, 1970 [J. C. SHAH AND A. N. GROVER, JJ. ] Hindu Law-Legal necessity-Proof of-Recitals in deed, ev/dentiary talue of. S. a Hindu female ¥overned by Dayabhaga system of law, executed a sale·deed. It WH recited in the agreement that she agreed to sell "on ac,count of financial need and to pay off certain debts". After her death her son1 flied . a suit for a declaration that the sale-deed was not blndln1 . on them as It was executed without legal necessity .. ·The Trial Court held that the sale deed was supported by legal necessity. The Court a! SG observed, that the . contention that, there was fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence was ·not seriously pressed as there was no evidence adduced to prove the same.
The High Court, in appeal, reversed the decree holding that the defendants' case of 'legal necessity was not proved and on that account the sale deed was not binding upon the plaintiffs. , The High Court, without adverting to the record, observed that the case of the plaintiffs that S was induced to exeoute the sale deed because of persuation and undue intluence had to be accepted. In appeal by cer· tificate, this Court, HELD : (i) The Appell&nts-defendants had amply ,made out that the sale deed was supported by ·1egal necessity. The observations of the High Court were not supported by any evidence and they seriously -vitiated the appreciation of the evidence oh record. · (ii) Legal necessity does not mean actual compulsion : it means pres· sure upon the estate whi. ch in law may be regarded as serious and . sufli·. cient. The cn•1s of proving legal necessity may be discharged by the alienee by proof of actual necessity .
or by proof that he made proper and bonfide enquiries about the existence of the necessity and that he did all that was reasonable to satisfy himself as to the existenee' of the necessity. [608 DJ Recitals in a deed, of legal necessity, do not by themselves prove legal necessity, The recitals are. however, admissible in evidence, their value varying according to the circumstances in which the transaction was' entered into. Where the evidence which could be brought before the Court and is within the special knowledge of the person who seek. s to set aside the sale is withheld, such evidence being normally not available to the alienee, the recitals go to his aid with greater force, and the Court may be justified in appropriate cases in raising. an inference against the party seeking to set aside the sale on the ground of absence of legal necessilv wholly or partially when he withholds evidence in his posses· sion.
Jn the present case the recitals in the deed about the existence of pressure upon the estate are amply corroborated by the circumstances. [608 F] (iii) Since the plaintiffs only claimed relief against defendants. 1 & 2 for declaration that the alienation in their favour was not binding on the plaintiffs and that relief cannot be granted to the plaintiffs, the circum· SUP. REME COD. RT REPORTS [1971] 2 S. C. R. ·'ance that the heirs of the I 0th detendant are not Im pleaded in their ppeal does not affect the right of the defendants to claim tbe appeal must bo dismissed. [610 Cl C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 1966. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 7, 1962 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 173 of. 1956. S. V. Gupte and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellants. Purushottam Chatterjee, P. K. Chatterjee and Rathin Das, for respo. ndent N13. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J.
One Sashi Bhusan was possessed of a piece of land at Mou~a Behala District 24-Parganas admeasuring . 98 acres. The land devolved on the death of Sashi Bhusan in 1920 upon his daughter Sarala. Under the Dayalihaga system of law; Sarala inherited the propP. rty of her father as a limited owner. Sarala married Kunja Behari. The latter died in 1937 reaving him surviving Sarala, two sons Tulsi and Gobinda, and four daughters were married during the life-time of · Kunja Behai·i. Kunja Behari left no estate except a residential house constructed on the land at M auza Behal a. Kunja Behari was ailing for about one year before his death in 1937. He was in an humble walk of life, and was apparently not profitably employed during his life-time. At the time of his death the two sons Tulsi and Gobinda were minors. On October 22, 1941, Sarala executed a deed, Ext. E, agree-ing to sell a part of the land (. 90 acres) for Rs. · 1,100/- to Chapalabala wife of Saklia Nath Ghosh.
It was recited in the agreement of sale that Sarala had agreed to sell . 90 acres of land possessed by her 'on account of financial need and to pay off certain debts". Sarala acknowledged receipt' of Rs. 101/- as earnest money. It appears that Sarala was for some time thereafter disinclined to cany out the bargain. However on March 13, 1942 she executed a deed, Ext. C, conveying the land agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,500/- to Chapalabala and Banikana. It was recited in the deed : "Now on account of financial needs and to meet certain debt5 and out of other legal necessity, I an-nounced to sell . 90 acre land at rent of R5. 23/- per annum free from defects and encumbrances leaving a RANI V. S~DEBNATH (Shah, J. ) 605 portion of homestead J~nd measuring . 08 acre. " It was also recited in the deed that Rs. 101/- were paid on the date of the agreement of sale, that Sarala had received Rs. 899/- before the date of sale, and Rs.
500/- were paid to her in the presence of the Sub-Registrar. An endorsement of payment of Rs. 500/- before the Sub-Registrar was made by that Officer. The thumb-mark of Sarala was attested by Abinash Chandra Chakravarty and the deed was attested by four persons including her son Gobinda. On the date of the sale the rent in respect of the land was in arrears. It also appears that before the date of sale Mangala had been given in marriage and the youngest daughter Radha remained to be married. Sarala had also to provide for food and clothing for at least five persons. Sarala had only a residential house and the land in dispute and she had no source of income. Sarala died on April 12, 1950. On January 24, 1953 Tulsi and Gobinda sons of Sarala filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 24-Parillnas, for a decree declaring that the sale deed dated March 13, 1942, execlited by Sarala was not binding upon the plaintiffs, because it was executed without legal necessity.
The suit was resisted by Chapalabala and BanikP. na (defendants 1 & 2) an:! by alianees of the land from them. The Trial Court held that the sale deed was supported by legal necessity. The learned Judge observed that Sarala was in "strained financial circumstances", and she executed the sale deed to meet expenses for maintaining herself and her family, and for payment of debts. She had, 10 meet municipal taxes, rent for the land, and expenses for the marriage of her daughter. Radha. The learned Judge observed that the plea that execution of the sale deed was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and undu elonged, the marriage of a daughter only costs Rs. 50/-. That evidence, in our jilQgment, is wholly unreliable. In any event apart from the obligation to pay rent and to meet the expenses of marriage of her daughter Mangala various other obligations had to be met.
The argument that Sarala belonged to a community in which the male members used to be employed as "household servants'" and that Tulsi and Gobinda were so employed is also not supported by any reliable evidence. In our judgment, the High Court ignored the strong inference which arose out of these circumstances and especially out of the participation by Gobinda in the execution of the agreement of sale and the sale deed. In our vim· the case of the defendants 1 and 2 that the sale deed was supported by legal necessity of Sarala was amply made out and the Trial Court was right in holding that the sale deed was executed for legal necessity. From the attestation by Gobinda one of the sons of the agreement of sale and the sale deed and the recitals in those deeds. viewed in the light of the other evidence. we are ot the opinion that the level necessity set up by the defendants I and 2 is amply proved.
I~ was urged before us that because the 10th defendant died before tl1e certificate was given by the High Court for appeal to . this Court, and the heirs of the 10th defendant were not brought on the record, the appeal abates in its entirety. There is, how- . ever, no clear evidence whether the 10th defendant died before or after the judgment of the High· Court. Again, the plaintiffs . had in the suit only claimed a relief for declaration that the alienation in. favour of defendants 1 and 2, i. e. Chapalabala . and Banikana made on March 13, 1942, was without legal necessity and was not binding upon them, and for a declaration of their . title to the disputed land. The alienees from defendants 1 and 2 were, it is true, impleaded as parties, but no relief was . claimed against them. Nor was any averment made in the plaint about the reasons for and the circumstances in which they were so impleaded.
Since the plaintiffs only claimed relief against defendants 1 and, 2, and that relief cannot be granted to the plaintiffs, we think, the circumstance Lliat the heirs of the 10th defendant are not impleaded in this appeal does not affect· the right of the defendl! nts to claim that the appeal must be dismissed. The appeal is therefore allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs throughout. Y. P. Appeal allowed;
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.