Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. D. Singh, J.
RAM PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
CHHAJJU - Respondents
Second Appeal 2173 Of 1953
Decided On : 09/26/1962
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 51 - ORAL SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY TRANSFEREE - RIGHT TO COMPENSATION - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 51 - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 54 - SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WORTH RS. 100/- OR MORE - REQUIREMENT OF REGISTERED DOCUMENT - ORAL SALE NOT A TRANSFER - TRANSFEREE NOT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 51.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff purchased a house from Baldewa, who had earlier purchased it from Piarey Lal. Mahu, Baldewa's brother, claimed that he was the real purchaser and that Baldewa was a benamidar. Mahu also claimed that he had spent Rs. 200/- in making improvements to the house. The plaintiff sued for possession of the house and, in the alternative, for refund of the purchase price. The trial court dismissed the suit against Mahu but decreed it for the recovery of the purchase price against Baldewa. The lower appellate court allowed the plaintiff's appeal and decreed the suit for possession of the house.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the purchase of the house by Baldewa was not benami for Mahu but in his own right. It also held that there was no Panchayat and no transfer of interest in the house by Baldewa to Mahu. The Court further held that the oral sale of the property for a sum of Rs. 500/-, as alleged by the appellants, was not a valid transfer under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, since it was not made by a registered document. The Court also held that the appellant was not a transferee within the meaning of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, since the oral sale was not a transfer and he could not have believed in good faith that he was absolutely entitled to the property.
Issues: 1. Whether the purchase of the house by Baldewa was benami for Mahu or in his own right? 2. Whether there was a Panchayat and a transfer of interest in the house by Baldewa to Mahu? 3. Whether the oral sale of the property for a sum of Rs. 500/-, as alleged by the appellants, was a valid transfer under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act? 4. Whether the appellant was a transferee within the meaning of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act? 5. Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act for the improvements made to the house?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The question of whether the purchase of the house by Baldewa was benami for Mahu or in his own right is a question of fact, and the findings of the lower appellate court on this issue are based on evidence and cannot be challenged in second appeal. 2. The reference to an oral sale of the property for a sum of Rs. 500/- in a postcard written by Baldewa to Mahu does not constitute evidence of a valid transfer, since the sale of immovable property worth Rs. 100/- or more must be made by a registered document under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. 3. The appellant was not a transferee within the meaning of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, since the oral sale was not a transfer and he could not have believed in good faith that he was absolutely entitled to the property.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs to the contesting respondent.
( 1 ) THIS is a defendants appeal arising out of suit No. 308 of 1950 of the Court of Munsif muzaffarnagar.
( 2 ) THE suit was filed by one Chhajju who purchased a house for a sum of Rs. 400/- under a sale dead date 1-7-1949 from Baldewa, defendant NO. 1. Baldewa and defendant No. 2, Mahu, were brothers, Mahu having died since then. The plaintiffs contention was that although he purchased the house from defendant No. 1, his brother Mahu had taken possession over the same-and that mahu was asserting that it was he who was the owner of the house and not Baldewa. The plaintiff therefore, filed the suit for recovery of possessor over the house and in the alternative he claimed refund of Rs. 400/- against defendant No. 1. Baldewa admitted that he had sold the house to the plaintiff. The real contest in the suit was between the plaintiff and Mahu Mahu alleged that he was doing contract business at Jagadhri and had sent Rs. 1440/- from there to his brother Baldewa at different times for purchase of a house for him and that this house had been purchasel by Bal-dewa from one Piarey Lal for him, though he got the sale deed executed in his own favour. Mahus contention, therefore, was that Baldewa was a "benamidar" and he himself was the real purchaser under the sale deed. It appears that sometime in 1949 Baldewa filed a suit for possession in respect of this house against Mahu, but this suit was dismissed for default of parties. Mahu, therefore, alleged that baldewals suit against him having been dismissed, he could not claim any title to the-house thereafter, nor could his transferee the present plaintiff. It was further alleged that the plaintiff purchased the house from Baldewa during the pendency of the aforesaid suit and that, therefore, the transfer in his, favour was invalid even on that account. Another plea raised by Mahu was that during the pendency of the suit between him and Baldewa, there was a Panchayat iin respect of this very dispute and the Panchayat decided that he, i. e, Mahu, should retain the house. Mahu further alleged that he had spent about Rs. 200/- in making, improvements in the house believing that he was the owner of the house and that in any case the suit could not be decreed unless he was compensated to that ex-tent.
( 3 ) THE Munsif held that Baldewa was a mere Be-namidar, the real purchaser under the sale deed being Mahu. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was held to have been executed during the pendency of the previous litigation between Batdewa and Mahu. It was, therefore, held to be ineffective the plaintiff having been heid not to be a purchaser in good faith. A plea under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act was raised oil behalf of the plaintiff, but it was decided against him. Mahu was also found to have spent Rs. 2oo/- in making the additional constructions in the house. As a result of these findings the suit was dismissed against Mahu, but was decreed for the recovery of Rs. 400/- the amount of consideration paid by the plaintiff, against Baldewa.
( 4 ) THE plaintiff Chajju went up in appeal, which was allowed by the Civil Judge. It was held by him that the purchase of the house by Baldewa was not Benami for Mahu but in his own right. He held that there was no Panchayat and no transfer of interest in the house by Baldewa to Mahu and that Baldewa having sold the house to the plaintiff, the latter was entitled to obtain possession over the same. The defendants have now come up in appeal. (4a) The question whether the house was purchased by Baldewa for his own self or Benami for his brother Mahu is a question of fact and so are the questions whether any Panchayat was held during the pendency of the previous litigation between Baldewa and Mahu and if in that panchayat Mahu was allowed to retain the house as full owner. The Civil Judge has given his reasons for arriving at the findings which are against Mahu. These findings are based on evidence. It is not open to the appe
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
