Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL RAO, A.V.KRISHNA RAO
Kadiyala Venkatasubbaiah - Appellant
Versus
Sarupuri Narayanamma - Respondent
Decided On : 11-11-71
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 8 - DEFEASANCE CLAUSE - CONSTRUCTION OF DOCUMENT - ABSOLUTE TRANSFER WITH DEFEASANCE CLAUSE - DISTINCTION - EFFECT OF DEFEASANCE CLAUSE - REVERSION OF PROPERTY.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of possession of suit properties and for mesne profits, alleging that the suit properties originally belonged to him and his undivided brothers. The eldest brother died long ago leaving his widow and a minor daughter. The plaintiff and his two minor brothers maintained these ladies. They also performed the marriage of the daughter with the 1st defendant. As the widow wanted some arrangement to be made in her favour for maintenance, it was agreed that the widow and her daughter should enjoy the income from suit properties and reside in the thatched house on the suit site. It was also agreed that after the lifetime of the widow, the property would be enjoyed by the daughter, but that the said properties would continue to vest in the donors family in case the daughter did not have any issue. To evidence this arrangement a document was executed by the plaintiff and his two brothers in favour of the widow and the daughter. Shortly after the execution of the document, the brothers died unmarried. The daughter also died issue less in 1936. The widow died in 1964. The plaintiff, therefore, wanted the reliefs to be granted to him.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court found that the last clause in the gift deed was not surreptitiously introduced as was contended by the defendants. Upon an interpretation of the gift deed, however, the trial Court came to the conclusion that it was a case of conditional or restricted transfer and the last clause which puts restriction is void as it is repugnant to the main clause whereby absolute property has been transferred. The appellate Court agreed with the view of the trial Court that the present is the case of absolute transfer of the property in favour of the daughter and the last clause relating to reversion of property in case the daughter does not have any issue is void as it is repugnant to the main clause.
Issues: 1. Whether the last clause in the gift deed was surreptitiously introduced? 2. Whether the gift deed is a conditional or restricted transfer or an absolute transfer?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the last clause in the gift deed was not surreptitiously introduced as contended by the defendants. 2. The Court held that the gift deed is a conditional or restricted transfer and not an absolute transfer. The Court observed that the document is clear and unambiguous and it discloses that one part of the document is apparently inconsistent with the other part of the same document. In such cases, every attempt should first be made to reconcile the two conflicting clauses so as to read the two parts of the document harmoniously, if possible. Where, however, it is not possible to harmonise the two clause has to be given effect to, and the subsequent clause disregarded. 3. The Court further held that the defeasance clause in the gift deed is perfectly satisfied in the present case because the daughter had pre-deceased the widow. She died issue less. On the date of the death of the widow, the conditional transfer in favour of the daughter could not have taken place because there was on occasion for giving effect to that clause at all. Neither the daughter was alive then nor had she left any issue.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Judge as well as the judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the plaintiffs suit with costs throughout. The profits, past and future, will be inquired in to by the Trial Court and a suitable decree passed in the light of the result of such inquiry.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is from the judgment of our learned brother Parthasarathi, J. given in Appeal No. 283 of 1966 on 20/03/1970, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal.
( 2 ) THE material facts are that the appellant-plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of possession of A to C schedule properties and for mesne profits, past as well as future, alleging inter alia that the suit properties originally belonged to the plaintiff and his undivided brothers Nagayya, Venkayya and Raghavayya. The eldest brother Nagayya died long ago leaving his widow Raghavamma and a minor daughter Venkatasubbamma. The plaintiff and his two minor brothers maintained these ladies. They also performed the marriage of Venkatasubbamma with the 1st defendant. As Raghavamma wanted some arrangement to be made in her favour for maintenance, it was agreed that Raghavamma and her daughter Venkatasubbamma should enjoy the income from A and B Schedule lands and reside in the thatched house on the C Schedule site. It was also agreed that after the lifetime of Raghavamma, the property would be enjoyed by the daughter Venkatasubbamma, but that the said properties would continue to vest in the donors family in case Venkatasubbamma did not have any issue. To evidence this arrangement a document was executed on 29-4-1930 by the plaintiff and his two brothers in favour of Raghavamma and Venkatasubbamma.
( 3 ) SHORTLY after the execution of the document Venkayya and Raghavayya died unmarried. Venkatasubbamma also died issue less in 1936. Raghavamma died in 1964.
( 4 ) THE plaintiff in view of these facts alleged that according to the said document the property reverted to the settlors and since the plaintiffs entitled to the said property and not the 1st defendant as the heir of Venkatasubbamma he wanted the reliefs to be granted to him.
( 5 ) THE 1st defendant stated in his written statement that his wife Venkatasubbamma had become the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property on the date when the document was executed subject to the condition that show would maintain her mother Raghavamma. After Venkatasubbammas death the 1st defendant as her heir became the owner of the property subject of course to maintain Raghavamma. The 1st defendant accordingly maintained Raghavamma during her lifetime. It was contended that the last clause in the gift deed that the plaint properties shall revert back to the donors family in case Venkatasubbamma died issue less was surreptitiously introduced without the knowledge of Raghavamma and Venkatasubbamma. It was contrary to the agreement made at the time of the marriage of Venkatasubbamma with the 1st defendant. The last clause is void and in operative.
( 6 ) THE 2nd defendant is the person who had allegedly purchased some property from the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is a lessee. They in their written statements supported their transfers on the ground that the 1st defendant was competent to make them.
( 7 ) UPON these pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues. The second issue was"whether last clause in the gift deed was surreptitiously introduced as contended by the defendants?"after a proper trial the trial Court found on issue was not surreptitiously introduced as was contended by the defendants. Upon as interpretation of the gift deed, however, the trial Court came to the conclusion that it was a case of conditional or restricted transfer and the last clause which puts restriction is void as it is repugnant to the main clause whereby absolute property has been transferred.
( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the decision of the trial Court dated 25/02/1966, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to this Court. Parthasarathi, J. , who heard the appeal also agreed with the view of the trial Court that the present is the case of absolute transfer of the property in favour of Venkatasubbamma and the last clause relating to reversion of property in case Venkatasubbamma does not have any issue is void as it i
AI
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
