Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.
Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee – Appellant
Vs.
Bannama (Dead) by LRS. – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No.3198 of 2007]
Decided On : 25-07-2014
(b) Transfer of Property Act – Section 43 – Doctrine of feeding the estoppel – Applies when a transferor having no interest in the property transfers the same but subsequently acquires interest in the said property – The purchaser may claim benefit of such subsequent acquisition of property by the transferor – Instantly, plaintiff’s son predeceasing his mother never acquired interest in his mother’ property which he sold unauthorisedly – His legal heirs not inheriting the property through their father but under section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act being grand children of their grandmother – Section 43 not applicable. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
One Bannamma claimed to have inherited agricultural land from her father. Due to her old age she allowed her son to look after the land, who got it mutated in his own name and then sold the same to the appellant Committee who purchased the same without verifying title of the land.
Bannamma filed a suit for title and possession of the land.
The trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff-Bannamma was the owner and directed delivery of possession of the suit land.
The appeals of the defendants were allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside.
The High Court reversed the finding recorded by the Appellate Court and allowed the regular second appeal decreeing the suit of plaintiff-Bannamma holding that plaintiff has title to the suit property and her son-defendant no.2 could not have sold the property.
Finding of the Court:
There is no merit in the appeal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act was discussed and applied (!) (!) - Grandchildren inherited stridhan property through Hindu Succession Act Section 15 (!) (!) - Doctrine of feeding the estoppel does not apply as the son never acquired interest in the property during his lifetime (!) (!) (!) - The High Court's finding of facts was affirmed with no perversity (!) - The appeal was dismissed holding the plaintiff has title to the suit property (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
M.Y. EQBAL, J.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.10.2003 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.S.A.No.556 of 1997, whereby the appeal preferred by plaintiff-respondent no.1 was allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the appellate court in RA No.12 of 1994 and confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff-respondent no.1, as set out in the trial court judgment, are that the plaintiff was an agriculturist and old lady residing at Saidapur village. Whereas, respondent no.2 (defendant no.2) was none other than the son of the plaintiff and was vice president of the appellant-first defendant society, which is a statutory body constituted and functioning under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (Regulation) Act. The suit land bearing Sy.No.58/1 measuring 7 acres 19 guntas situated at Saidapur village of Yadgir Taluk, for which Smt. Bannamma - plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title claiming that the property was inherited by her from her father and it was her stridhan property, which is alleged to be standing in the name of the plaintiff since 1954-55. The land Sy.No.58-B has got two hissas as Hissa Nos.1 and 2, each measuring 7 acres 18 guntas and its khasra pahani numbers are 131 and 132 respectively. The property claimed by the plaintiff is Sy.No.58/A bearing Khasra No.131.
3. The plaintiff being an old lady, allowed her son second defendant to look after and manage the suit property on her behalf. It is pleaded that taking advantage of the same, second defendant, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, got mutated the suit land in his name on the basis of the release deed. It is contended that second defendant sold the entire suit land to the appellant-first defendant, who purchased the same without verifying the title of second defendant and got a registered sale deed on 28.12.1978(Ex.P.24). The suit land has also been converted into non-agriculture land. The first defendant, thereafter, notified the plots in the property for sale by public auction on 22.12.1989 and 23.1.1990, which came to the information of the plaintiff and consequently she moved the court by filing suit for declaration of title and possession of land and declaration regarding the sale deed.
4. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff-Bannamma was the owner and directed delivery of possession of the suit land. The trial court also directed second defendant to refund the purchase price to the appellant-first defendant, who, by preferring an appeal, challenged the decree granted in favour of plaintiff. The second defendant filed a separate appeal challenging the direction to refund the sale price. The appeals of the defendants were allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside, holding that Nagi Reddy-second defendant was the owner of the suit property with title to sell the property. It is evident from the record that Nagi Reddy-second defendant died during the pendency of the appeal and his children, who are grandchildren of Bannamma- plaintiff were brought on record as Lrs. of Nagi Reddy.
5. Aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Court, Bannamma-plaintiff preferred regular second appeal being RSA No.556 of 1997. The High Court reversed the finding recorded by the Appellate Court and allowed the regular second appeal decreeing the suit of plaintiff-Bannamma holding that plaintiff has title to the suit property and her son-defendant no.2 could not have sold the property. The second defendant remained absent before the High Court. The first defendant contended that second defendant in collusion with plaintiff brought the suit. The plea of limitation was also raised. In the impugned judgment, the High Court found that the sale deed was obtained by the first defendant in December, 1978 and the suit is filed during April, 1990 before the expiry of 12
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
