SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(Cal) 88

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
AMIYA KUMAR MUKHERJI
MANJUSHA DEBI - Appellant
Versus
SUNIL CHANDRA MUKHERJEE - Respondent
A. F. A. D.  680  Of  1959
Decided On : MARCH 21, 1972

Advocates Appeared:
APURBADHAN MUKHERJI, Dwijendra Nath Lahiri, HIMANGSHU KUMAR BOSE, J.N.GHOSH, Nirmal Kumar Ganguly, SAKTI PRASAD MUKHERJI

A vendor cannot limit the interest of the purchaser in a deed of Conveyance by which the property had been transferred absolutely to the purchaser.

Headnote:

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 11 - SALE - ABSOLUTE TRANSFER - LIMITATION OF INTEREST BY VENDOR - VALIDITY - HABENDUM - EFFECT.

Fact of the Case:

Kalidashi Devi executed a Will dedicating certain properties to deities and appointing Shebaits. After her death, a partition suit was filed, and the plaintiff, Kalidashi's granddaughter, applied to be added as a party but was rejected. She obtained a letter of administration regarding Kalidashi's Will and, along with another Shebait, brought a suit for a declaration that the properties were Debuttar and for an injunction restraining the defendants from realizing rents.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit, holding that Kalidashi was the absolute owner of the properties and that the limitation of her interest in the Conveyance was unlawful under Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court of appeal below set aside the trial court's judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, holding that Kalidashi was the holder of a life estate only and that the Will made by her was invalid.

Issues: 1. Whether a life estate can be created by a deed by the vendor. 2. Whether the habendum in a Conveyance can override Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A life estate cannot be created by a deed by the vendor. A sale is a transfer of ownership of the property, and by a transfer, a transferor divested himself of his interest in the property to the transferee. Thereafter, he has no right to create a life estate in favor of a transferee. 2. A habendum cannot override Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 54 provides that a transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is then capable of passing in the property, and all the rights and incidents attaching to such interest.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the court of appeal below were set aside, and that of the trial court with respect to the plaintiff No. 1 were restored.

AMIYA KUMAR MOOKERJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff No. 1. It arises out of a suit brought by her and one Sambhu Mukherjee for a declaration that premises No. 51/a and B. Lansdowne Road were Debuttar properties of the deities. Sree Durgajee and Sree Baraha Kaliiee and, they were the respective Shebaits.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff No. 1 is a granddaughter (daughter's daughter) of Kalidashi Devi who executed a Will, by which, she dedicated 51/b, Lansdowne Road, to the deity -- Sree Dursaiee, and appointed her only daughter Durgarani, the Shebait and after her death, her daughter, -- the plaintiff No. 1. The premises No. 51/a, Lansdowne Road was dedicated to the deity Sree Baraha Kalijee and Sambhu Nath Mukheriee, her grandson (son of the defendant No. 1) was appointed a Shebait. After the death of Kalidashi Devi, who died on the 24th of November, 1949, plaintiff No. 1 applied for letter of administration in respect of the will of the said Kalidashi. Three days thereafter, defendant No. 3 brought a partition suit being title suit No. 65 of 1950, in the 1st court of Subordinate Judge, Alipore. The plaintiff No. 1 applied to the learned Subordinate Judge for being added as a party in that suit. Her prayer was reiected. The plaintiff No. 1, after contest, however, obtained a letter of administration regarding the Will of Kalidashi. Thereafter, a Receiver was appointed in the said partition suit. As the Shebaits were deprived of the income of the Debuttar Estate, the plaintiffs brought the above suit for necessary declaration and for an injunction restraining the defendants from realising rents from the tenants of the Debuttar Properties.

( 3 ) THE defendants Nos. 2 and 3, Sekharesh and Sunilesh, the sons of Kalidashi, contested the suit. Their defence, in substance, was, that Kalidashi had only a limited interest with regard to the disputed properties. She had no right to dispose of the same by a Will. W. C. Banerjee, the father of Kalidashi was a rich coal mine owner, who advanced the loan to one Durgadas Chatterjee and, subsequently, purchased the property with his own money for the benefits of his widowed daughter -- Kalidashi, during her life time and thereafter for the absolute benefits of her sons--the defendants. Since the death of their mother, the defendants have been possessing the properties.

( 4 ) THE trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit upon the findings that Kalidashi advanced Rs. 30,000/- to Durgadas Chatterjee; W. C. Baneriee -- the father of Kalidashi, made a gift of the said money to his widowed daughter; Kalidashi became absolute owner of the suit premises by purchase and the limitation of her interest created in the Conveyance was unlawful under Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The learned Subordinate Judge further observed that under the Indian Law the vendor has no right to limit the interest of the purchaser in the deed by which the property had been transferred absolutely to the purchaser. The vendor was not competent to abridge the interest of the vendee in the habendum.

( 5 ) ON appeal, the court of appeal below set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit upon the view that Kalidashi was the holder of a life estate only, so the Will made by her, upon foundation of which the plaintiffs brought their action must fail. It found, that total consideration for the Conveyance was Kalidashi's money; the disposition the Conveyance Ext. I made, was not absolute interest in favour of Kalidashi. So that grant did not offend Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act.

( 6 ) MR. Ghosh, appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that having found that the consideration for the Conveyance was Kalidashi's money, the court of appeal below erred in holding that Kalidashi by a "self-denying ordinance" limited the right, title and interest which passed to her by the said Conveyance to a life estate. Absolute right was con


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top