The recitals in a sale deed regarding the source of the vendor's title do not necessarily limit the scope of the conveyance to the title obtained from that source, especially when the vendor has absolute title to the property from another source.

V. NEELADRI RAO, J.

( 1 ) 18-3-1975. 2. Venkatanandam executed Ex. A-3 will deed dated 16-3-75 bequeathing the plaint A schedule property to his mother Lakshmikanthamma and the latter sold the plaint-A schedule property to her under Ex. A-1 registered sale deed dated 12-6-75, claims the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE defendant pleaded that Ex. A-3 will is not true and Venkalanandam executed Ex. B-2 will deed dated 1-12-74 bequeathing the plaint-A schedule property in his favour.

( 3 ) THE trial court held that both Exs. A-3 and B-2 Wills are not true. The trial court dismissed the suit by holding that as Ex. A-3 will is not true, the vendor under Ex. A-1 had not got any title and thus the plaintiff also does not get any title. The first appellate court affirmed the finding of the trial court that Exs. A-3 and B-2 (Will Deeds) are not true. But it allowed the appeal of plaintiff by holding that as Venkatanandam died unmarried, his mother Lakshmikantham succeeded to plaint-A schedule property as his only heir and hence she got title and so plaintiff had title under Ex. A-1 sale deed executed by her mother Lakshmikanthamma.

( 4 ) THE findings in regard to Exs. A-3 and B-2 Wills are on appreciation of evidence and hence neither party canvassed the correctness of the same in this Second Appeal. But the learned counsel for the legal representative of the defendant urged as under:-- 1. In Ex. A-1 sale deed it is recited that the vendor got title under Ex. A-3 Will and hence it has to be inferred that the vendor conveyed only the title which she got under Ex. A-3 Will Deed and when Ex. A-3 Will was held to be untrue, Lakshmikanthamma could not convey title under Ex. A-1. The first appellate court erred in holding that as per Ex. A-1 title which Lakshmikanthamma got as heir of her son was conveyed for it is contrary to the recitals in Ex. A-1 sale deed. S. 8, Transfer of Property Act specifically recites that it is not applicable if contra intention is disclosed from the document.

( 5 ) EX. A-1 sale deed is devoid of consideration. The plaintiff admitted that her mother issued notice to the effect that Ex. A-1 was obtained by misrepresentation. The-defendant being one of the heirs of his mother can take such a plea even after the expiry of period of limitation for filing a suit to set aside Ex. A-1 sale deed on the ground that it is avoidable due to misrepresentation.

( 6 ) THESE are the points for consideration in the Second Appeal. Point No. 1 Lakshmikanthamma as vendor under Ex. A-1 sale deed claimed that she got plaint-schedule property, which was sold under Ex. A-1, under Ex. A-3 will executed by her son. It is recited in Ex. A-1 that she got it under Ex. A-3 Will but when Ex. A-3 will was held to be not true, it has to be stated that Venkatanandam died intestate and so his mother Lakshmikanthamma being his only heir succeeds to the same. Even as per recitals in Ex. A-3 Will, Lakshmikanthamma was given absolute right in the plaint-A schedule property. Even as heir of Venkatanandam, she got absolute title. So either as legatee under the Will or as heir of her son, she got absolute title. So the vendor under Ex. A-1 had every right to convey the title under Ex. A-1, contends the learned counsel for plaintiff. 7. In this context, the learned counsel for the legal representative of the defendant referred to the following decisions:-- A muslim boy governed by Hanafi Law executed a sale deed in respect of his properties to his mother with instructions to spend the purchase money for charitable purposes. After his death, she executed a wakf-nama by which she granted wakf in respect of the property conveyed to her by the sale deed. The sale was found to be void as being a death-bed gift in fraud of heirs under the cloak of sale. Then it was urged that the mother was one of the heirs and so the wakf-nama should be held valid in regard to her share. Adverting to the said contention it was held in Har Prasad v. Fazal Ahmad AIR 1933 PC 83 that the sale

Click Here to Read the rest of this document