Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. C. Mallick
AJIT K. SAHA - Appellant
Versus
NAGENDRA N. SAHA - Respondent
Suit 592 Of 1956
Decided On : FEBRUARY 16, 1960
INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 307 - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BY ADMINISTRATOR - VOIDABLE - HINDU LAW - WIDOW'S POWER TO ALIENATE HUSBAND'S PROPERTY - LEGAL NECESSITY - SALE OF STRUCTURE ON LAND - WASTEFUL ACT - NOT LEGAL NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
Panchurani, the widow of Kamal Krishna, sold premises No. 43d, Circular Garden Reach Road to Nagendra, her nephew, to pay off a debt owed by Kamal Krishna to Nagendra. She also sold the structures standing on one of the bustee lands of the estate to Bolai, another nephew, for Rs. 200/-. The plaintiffs, the next reversioners of Kamal Krishna, filed a suit for partition of the estate and challenged the sales as voidable under Section 307 of the Indian Succession Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sale of premises No. 43d, Circular Garden Reach Road was not hit by Section 307 of the Indian Succession Act because Panchurani was no longer administering her husband's estate at the time of the sale. The court found that the debts due by the estate were either paid off or time-barred, and that Panchurani was therefore entitled to deal with her own estate without any leave of the court. The court also held that the sale of the structures on the bustee land was hit by Section 307 of the Indian Succession Act because Panchurani was still administering her husband's estate at the time of the sale. However, the court found that there was no legal necessity for the sale and that it was therefore voidable.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale of premises No. 43d, Circular Garden Reach Road was hit by Section 307 of the Indian Succession Act. 2. Whether the sale of the structures on the bustee land was hit by Section 307 of the Indian Succession Act. 3. Whether there was legal necessity for the sale of the structures on the bustee land.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sale of premises No. 43d, Circular Garden Reach Road was not hit by Section 307 of the Indian Succession Act because Panchurani was no longer administering her husband's estate at the time of the sale. The court found that the debts due by the estate were either paid off or time-barred, and that Panchurani was therefore entitled to deal with her own estate without any leave of the court. 2. The court held that the sale of the structures on the bustee land was hit by Section 307 of the Indian Succession Act because Panchurani was still administering her husband's estate at the time of the sale. However, the court found that there was no legal necessity for the sale and that it was therefore voidable.
Final Decision: The court passed a preliminary decree for partition of the estate of Kamal Krishna. The court declared that premises No. 43d, Circular Garden Reach Road belonged to Nagendra and could not be the subject matter of the partition. The court also declared that the sale of the structures on the bustee land was voidable. The court appointed a Commissioner of Partition to file a report within 6 months from the date of the decree.
( 1 ) THIS is a suit for partition of the estate of one Kamal Krishna Saha. Kamal Krishna died on 20-10-1921 leaving him surviving as his sole heiress his widow Panchurani. Kamal Krishna had no son. Panchurani died on 22-11-1954. The parties to this suit are the next reversioners who want a partition of the estate of Kamal Krishna.
( 2 ) KAMAL Krishna died leaving the following immoveable properties : Premises No. 43d, Circular Garden Reach Road, Premises Nos. 116/2a, 116/2b, 116/2c and 116/d, Circular Garden Reach Road and premises No. 3b, Sett Bagan Lane. Of the properties left by Kamal, premises No. 116/2b and premises No. 116/2c have been sold to pay off the debts of Kamal Krishna by Panchurani as administratrix of the estate of Kamal pursuant to orders of the Court. It appears that Panchurani also transferred and conveyed the premises 43d, Circular Garden Reach Road to one of the defendants Nagendra but without obtaining any order of the Court.
( 3 ) ALL the heirs of Kamal Krishna except the defendant Nagendra are the plaintiffs in this suit. The defendants impleaded are Nagendra and his son Bolai. The defendant Bolai has been impleaded as a party on tire allegation that he is the benamdar of Nagendra and certain transfers and demises have been made by Panchurani in favour of Nagendra in the benami of Bolai. These demises and transfers have been challenged in this suit.
( 4 ) IT has been alleged in the plaint that Panchurani during her lifetime transferred and conveyed premises No. 43d, Circular Garden Reach Road to Nagendra without obtaining an order from the District [fudge even though she was administering the estate under Letters of Administration issued by the learned District Judge, 24 Pergannahs. The consideration for the sale was to pay off a debt due to Nagendra by Kamal being the sum of Rs. 800/- deposited by Nagendra with Kamal Krishna during Kamal Krishna's lifetime. This alienation by Panchurani in favour of Nagendra has been challenged in this suit on the ground that it is wholly illegal and voidable under Section 307 of the Indian Succession Act. So also the plaintiffs have challenged the sale of the structures standing in one of the bustee lands of the estate to Bolai for Rs. 200/- sometime in 1944. The case made is that this is also immovable property and the transfer having been made without an order of the Court is voidable. The plaintiffs seek to avoid this sale as well in this suit.
( 5 ) IN the plaint, reliefs have been sought not merely against the defendant Nagendra but also against Bolai as well. As I stated before, the transactions in favour of Bolai are alleged to have been made as the benamdar of Nagendra.
( 6 ) IN the written statement filed by the respective defendants, these allegations of impropriety of conduct on the part of Panchurani, Nagendra and Bolai have been denied. The alienation in favour of Nagendra is alleged to have been made in liquidation of a debt due by Nagendra against Kamal Krishna by Panchurani the widow of Kamal Krishna. So also the sale in favour of Bolai of the structures standing in one of the bustee lands is contended to be for legal necessity and as such binding on everybody. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to institute the suit and that they are entitled to no relief in this suit. On these pleadings, various issues have been raised by the respective parties. The evidence of Nagendra has been taken on commission. At the trial no further oral evidence was tendered on behalf of Nagendra.
( 7 ) ON behalf of the plaintiffs, the evidence of Ganesh Chunder Saha the plaintiff No. 4 was tendered. The Brief of Documents in this case has been tendered and marked as an exhibit with the consent of the parties, formal proof of the documents having been dispensed with.
( 8 ) MR. Samaran Sen the learned counsel appearing for Bolai has contended before me that the plaint discloses no cause of action and that the suit should be
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
