Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. SAWANT AND S.B. MAJMUDAR. JJ.
N.A. Mohammed Kasim (Dead) by L.Rs, and another. Appellant
Versus
Sulochana and others. Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1247 of 1978
Decided on 28-4-1995.
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 142 - Claim in present litigation - settlement and the power of attorney executed - As required by one of clauses in this agreement defendants courted appointed as court of attorney agents by third defendant for purpose of selling suit lands and carrying out directions as contained in document - Though this court of attorney was specifically mentioned as non revocable third defendant by registered notice revoked court of attorney - Therefore on executed two sale deeds conveying suit lands in favor of first and second defendants - Suit was filed on ground that compromise memo filed in Revenue Court treated trust in respect first and second defendants - Suit was filed in Revenue Court treated trust in respect of suit lands conferring beneficial interest on plaintiffs and that therefore third defendant had no right to sell same and any such sale executed by him was void and inoperative – Held, Court everyone aspect of matter requires to be noted at this stage - Even trial Court and first appellate Court have taken view on evidence that there was talk securing interest of plaintiff prior to her marriage with defendant who was of courted intellect and that seems to be reason why memorandum of settlement exhibit or even courts of attorney exhibit in favor of defendants saw light of day - But for such promise held out by defendant for benefit of plaintiff marriage itself would not have taken place - Defendant and plaintiff both changed their position to their detriment only because of that promise out by defendant for benefit of plaintiff - Defendant seems to have become smart with plaintiffs and having taken advantage of helpless condition of plaintiff and her minor daughter and also of his own son of courted intellect defendant - Entered into sale deeds in favor of defendants to which both he and defendant became parties as executants - Counsel for plaintiff respondents therefore vehemently contended that in case court courted not inclined to hold in favor of plaintiffs in light of documents exhibit in interest of justice some reasonable amount may be directed to be paid by defendants to plaintiffs who are stranded in life – Defendants have stepped in shoes of defendants would be bound in equity to make good promise held out by defendant on his behalf and on behalf of his son defendant who was of courted intellect to secure interest of plaintiff basis of which marriage of plaintiff with defendant took place - Court find force in this contention - In our view this is fit case for invoking our Article Constitution of India for giving equitable relief to respondent plaintiffs not on ground on which they claimed relief in suit but on ground of promissory quit and fair play - As noted earlier defendant own admission at stage of trial clearly shows that there was some arrangement bet courted defendants for benefit of plaintiff pursuant to which marriage defendant took place with plaintiff - It has to be noted that suit properties courted sold to defendants years back for October - By passage of years suit properties naturally had appreciated in value - They courted claiming half share in consideration which was to be obtained out of sale of this property – Appeal disposed
JUDGMENT
MAJMUDAR, J. :—In this civil appeal the appellants, who are original defendants 1 & 2 in Original Suit No. 52/63 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, have brought in challenge the decision rendered by learned single Judge of the Madras High Court v. Ramaswami, J. in Second Appeal No. 195/69 which was allowed by the learned Judge and the suit of the respondent-plaintiffs 1 & 2 was decreed.
2. A few relevant facts leading to this appeal deserve to be noted at the outset.
Respondents 1& 2 filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration that two sale deeds executed by respondent. No. 3 herein who was father-in-law of plaintiff No. 1 and grand father of plaintiff No. 2 were null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Those sale deeds were executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of the present appellants who were original defendants 1 & 2. The contention of the plaintiffs was that a trust was created in favour of the plaintiffs by defendant No. 3 in connection with the suit lands and in breach of that trust defendant No. 3 had sold the lands to the defendant-appellants 1 & 2. For the sake of convenience we shall refer to the parties as original plaintiff and defendants. The first plaintiff is the wife of the fourth defendant and the second plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff and defendant No. 4. The marriage between the first plaintiff and the fourth defendant took place some time in April, 1995. The fourth defendant was considered to be wanting in worldly wisdom and fickle minded. Even before the marriage was settled the sixth defendant who is the father of the plaintiff required the third defendant who is the father of the fourth defendant to settle substantial portion of the properties on the fourth defendant and the first plaintiff if he were to give his daughter in marriage to the fourth defendant. The third defendant agreed and the marriage was settled. After the marriage finding that the third defendant was not settling the properties as agreed to earlier, the sixth defendant was taking all steps to persuade defendant No. 3 to settle properties for the first plaintiff as promised. The first three items of the plaint schedule which were wet land in Uller vattam of Thanjavur District which belonged to the third defendant were in the possession and cultivation of the sixth defendant. Since the third defendant had not settled any property on the first plaintiff as promised to the sixth defendant he appeared to have set up certain claims as against the third defendant as cultivating tenant in respect of these lands in his possession. Thereafter the third defendant filed a petition before the Revenue Court against the sixth defendant for eviction and recovery of possession. In these eviction proceedings, they filed what is termed a memorandum of compromise. As required by one of the clauses in this agreement defendants 7 and 8 were appointed as power of attorney agents by the third defendant for the purpose of selling the suit lands and carrying out the directions as contained in the document. Though this power of attorney was specifically mentioned as non-revocable the third defendant by registered notice dated 4-9-59 revoked the power of attorney. Therefore on 24-10-59, he executed two sale deeds conveying the suit lands in favour of the first and the 3 second defendants. The suit was filed on the ground that the compromise memo filed in the Revenue Court treated a trust in respect of the first and the second defendants. The suit was filed in the Revenue Court treated a trust in respect of the suit lands conferring a beneficial interest on the plaintiffs and that therefore the third defendant had no right to sell the same and any such sale executed by him was void and inoperative.
3. The case of the contesting defendants, present appellants, was that no trust was created in favour of the plaintiffs by the said compromise and power of attorney. Consequently, the sale deeds in their favour were not i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
