1962 Supreme(AP) 27

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.BHUJANGA RAO, B.V.SUBRAHMANYAM, K.NARASIMHAM, M.SURYANARYANA MURTHY, R.RAMALINGA REDDY
Dwarampudi Nagaratnamba - Appellant
Versus
Kunuku Ramayya - Respondent
Decided On : 02-09-62

Past cohabitation is not a valid consideration for a sale and a transfer of property for past cohabitation is void under Section 6(h) of the Transfer of Property Act.

Headnote:

Hindu Law - Joint Family - Alienation by Father - Consideration - Past Cohabitation - Whether Valid - Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), Ss. 54, 6(h) - Contract Act (9 of 1872), S. 2(d) - Madras, Patna and Allahabad High Courts' View - Bombay High Court's View - Improvements by Transferee - Right to Compensation - Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S. 51.

Fact of the Case:

The father of the plaintiffs, who were members of a joint Hindu family, executed two registered sale deeds in favor of the defendant, transferring the suit schedule properties. The recitals in the deeds showed that the alienations were supported by cash consideration. The defendant came into possession of the alienated properties immediately after the sale deeds and had been enjoying the same since then. After the death of the father, the plaintiffs brought a suit for delivery of the suit properties with profits thereon. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that the sales were true, were supported by consideration and were for legal necessity. She also claimed that she had made substantial improvements on the suit properties and was entitled to compensation for the same.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the sale deeds were not supported by consideration and were executed for past cohabitation. The court further held that past cohabitation was not a valid consideration for the sale and that the transactions were therefore void. The court also held that the defendant was entitled to compensation for the improvements made by her on the suit properties under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the sale deeds executed by the father in favor of the defendant were supported by consideration and were for legal necessity? 2. Whether past cohabitation is a valid consideration for a sale? 3. Whether the defendant was entitled to compensation for the improvements made by her on the suit properties?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sale deeds were not supported by consideration and were executed for past cohabitation. The court relied on the fact that the recitals in the sale deeds were false and that the defendant had failed to prove that the sale proceeds were utilized for the purposes mentioned therein. The court also relied on the fact that the father had executed a telegram to the defendant shortly after the execution of the sale deeds, stating that the sale deeds were not supported by consideration and that he repudiated them. 2. The court held that past cohabitation was not a valid consideration for a sale. The court relied on the fact that Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act requires that a sale must be for a price and that past cohabitation cannot be considered a price. The court also relied on the fact that Section 6(h) of the Transfer of Property Act prohibits the transfer of property for an immoral purpose and that past cohabitation is an immoral purpose. 3. The court held that the defendant was entitled to compensation for the improvements made by her on the suit properties under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court relied on the fact that the defendant had made the improvements in good faith, believing that she was the absolute owner of the properties.

Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal and dismissed the defendant's cross-objections. The court directed that the defendant be paid compensation for the improvements made by her on the suit properties and that the plaintiffs be put in possession of the properties upon payment of the compensation.