Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
U.N.Sinha, J.
Ramsaran Mahton
Versus
Harihar Prasad
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 1197 of 1956 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 02, 1960
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 41 - BENAMI TRANSACTION - FARZIDAR - GOOD FAITH - REASONABLE CARE - POSSESSION - CONSIDERATION - ESTOPPEL - PLEADING AND PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs claimed title to land purchased from Sheonandan Singh, who allegedly purchased it from the original owners in a benami transaction. The defendants, who were the contesting respondents, claimed that Sheonandan Singh was a farzidar (name lender) for them and that they had paid the consideration for the purchase. The plaintiffs alleged that they had paid Rs. 4000 to Sheonandan Singh and that they were entitled to a decree for confirmation of their possession or, alternatively, for recovery of the consideration paid.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that Sheonandan Singh was not a farzidar for the defendants and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration of their title and a decree for confirmation of their possession. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief against the defendants, but that they were entitled to a decree for Rs. 4000 against Sheonandan Singh only.
Issues: 1. Whether Sheonandan Singh was a farzidar for the defendants and whether he could convey a good and valid title to the plaintiffs under the sale deed dated 30-6-1948? 2. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession over the suit land? 3. Whether the plaintiffs were bona fide purchasers for value and whether they were entitled to a decree for Rs. 4,000.00 said to have been paid by them as consideration of the sale deed to Sheonandan Singh?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiffs could not rely on Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to protect their title because they had not pleaded and proved that they had acted in good faith and taken reasonable care to ascertain that Sheonandan Singh had the power to make the transfer. 2. The court also held that the findings of the appellate court with respect to possession of the land in dispute and the passing of consideration for the sale of the property were not erroneous.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs payable to the defendants.
U.N.Sinha, J.
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs. It arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title to and for recovery of possession of 1.29 acres of land appertaining to plots Nos. 1693 and 1418 in village Muamma. The plaintiffs case was that the land in dispute originally belonged to two brothers, named Azrul Haq and Mohammad Mustafa and their sister Rashidunnissa. The land was sold by these three persons on the 28th of January, 1948, for a consideration of Rs. 4800.00 to two persons, namely, Sheonandan Singh and Awadhesh Nandan Prasad. The sale deed contained two schedules of property. Schedule 1 indicated that the property included therein had been sold to Sheonandan Singh for Rs. 3800 and Schedule 2 indicated that the property included in that schedule had been sold to Awadhesh Nandan Prasad for Rs. 1000/-. The plaintiffs claimed that they had purchased the property mentioned in Schedule 1 of the sale deed, dated the 28th of January, 1948, from Sheonandan Singh by a sale deed dated the 30th June, 1948.
According to the plaintiffs case Sheonandan Singh had come in possession of Schedule 1 property mentioned above after his purchase and he put the plaintiffs in possession after the sale in question n favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then alleged that Awadhesh Nandan Prasad, on a misrepresentation that he required the sale deed dated the 28th of January, 1948, for mutation of his name with respect of Schedule 2 property had requested them to make over the sale deed which had been given to the plaintiffs by Sheonandan Singh.
Ultimately, the sale deed dated the 28th of January, 1948, was directed to be handed over to Awadhesh Nandan Prasad who, however, took away a basta containing several deeds and thereafter started claiming that Sheonandan Singh was a mere farzidar for Awadhesh Nandan Prasad. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants had cut away the paddy crop grown by the plaintiffs on the land in dispute but in criminal case instituted against the defendants they were acquitted. Being emboldened by the acquittal, the defendants threatened to take possession of the disputed land. As a cloud had been cast over the title of the plaintiffs they were obliged to institute the present suit for the reliefs mentioned above.
2. The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 1 to 8. According to these defendants all the properties mentioned in the sale deed dated the 28th of January, 1948, had been purchased by defendant No. 1 as the Karta of the joint family of these defendants and the property in Schedule 1 of that sale deed had been purchased in the farzi name of Sheonandan Singh. According to these defendants, Sheonandan Singh had no concern with the land in dispute and had never come in possession of the same. The entire consideration for the sale deed, dated the 28th of January, 1948, had been paid by the defendant No. 1. These defendants alleged that the sale deed dated the 30th of June, 1948, was really a collusive document without consideration and the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief at all. With respect to possession of documents of title, the case of these defendants was that the original bai beyana which had preceded the sale deed, dated the 28th of January, 1948, and the said sale deed had all along been in possession of defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs case that Awadhesh Nandan Prasad had been able to obtain the sale deed, dated the 28th of January, 1948, on a misrepresentation was denied.
According to these defendants the crop over which the criminal case had been instituted had been grown by these defendants and the criminal case was a false one. With respect to the motive for the alleged benami transaction the case of these defendants was that because the, landlords were inimically disposed towards these defendants a purchase in the benami name of Sheonandan Singh had been made by these defendants. Sheonandan Singh was considered by these defendan
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
