IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(Nagpur Bench)
Vaze V.V., J.
Vinayakappa Suryabhanappa Dahenkar .... Appellant.
Versus
Dulichand Hariram Murarka.... Respondent.
Second Appeal No. 73 of 1974, decided on 9-8-1985.
Advocates appeared :
V.R. Manohar, for appellant.
UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACT - SALE DEED - CONSIDERATION - INADEQUACY - LOAN TRANSACTION - RELIEF.
Fact of the Case:
Dulichand Hariram Murarka purchased a four-storied house from Rameshwarappa for Rs. 12,000/- by a registered sale-deed. Vinayakappa, the brother of Rameshwarappa, continued to occupy two rooms on the ground floor. Dulichand claimed that Vinayakappa was inducted as a tenant and had paid rent until January 3, 1967. Dulichand terminated Vinayakappa's tenancy and filed a suit for eviction and possession.
Finding of the Court:
The lower courts decreed the suit in favor of Dulichand. However, the High Court found that the consideration for the sale was inadequate and that the transaction was actually a loan transaction. The High Court also found that the defendant had never paid any rent to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had not paid municipal or nazul taxes for about 6 years.
Issues: Whether the sale deed was an unconscionable contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the sale deed was an unconscionable contract and that the plaintiff could not claim title to the property based on the deed. The Court relied on the following factors: * Extreme inadequacy of consideration * Continued occupation of the defendant in two rooms on the ground floor without paying any rent or compensation * Concurrent finding of both the courts that the defendant was not a tenant * The non-payment of municipal and nazul taxes by the alleged purchaser for a number of years * The challenge thrown by the defendant and his family members at the time of mutation
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
2. The lower Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the appeal filed against the judgment and decree having been dismissed, the defendant Vinayakappa has come up to this Court.
3. It is a common ground that the defendant is residing in two rooms on the ground floor all these years even though the entire house has been sold by his brother to the plaintiff. As the house was ancestral property of the family, it would not be unrealistic to conclude that the family was residing therein all these years prior to the sale and that the defendant Vinayakappa continued to occupy two rooms on the ground floor all these years even after the sale.
4. Couple with the continued occupation of two rooms in the demised property, the lower Appellate Court has repeatedly observed in its judgment that the consideration of the so called sale was inadequate. To cite the few instances :
"In any event, I am not inclined to accept that the house was only worth Rs. 12,000/- when it was conveyed over to the plaintiff for the said amount by virtue of sale-deed Ex. P. 58. The house may reasonably be valued at double the said amount when it came to be conveyed to the plaintiff. It might also be the plaintiff held out a hope to the defendant that if the family arranged to pay back the amount within a reasonable time, the plaintiff would accept it willingly and return the property... .... .... ....
It might be that the plaintiff as I have said, already might have given a tacit understanding orally that if the circumstances for the defendant's family proved to be favourably, they could purchase back both the properties, plaintiff would not stand in the way...."
"It is, therefore, clear that though the property originally was worth Rs. 10,000/- the defendant spent huge amount and made it worth much more. All the trial, the defendant said that it was worth Rs. 50,000/-. Making allowance for the exaggeration, I have stated that the property might be worth about Rs. 24,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- when the transaction Exh. 58 took place."
"... I have already given expression to my mental reservation regarding the sale-deed taken by the plaintiff of four-storeyed house for obviously inadequate amount of Rs. 12,000/-."
5. With this clear finding about inadequacy of consideration and loan nature of the transaction it is difficult to understand how the learned District Judge
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.