1997 Supreme(MP) 870

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A.K. MATHUR, DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
Parman – Appellant
Versus
Dadanlal – Respondent
L.P.A. No.3 of 1987 (J)
Decided On : 10-07-1997

Headnote:Contract Act, 1872 – S. 25 – no consideration paid – sell is void.

        Short Note

       1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in F.A. No. 100/86 at the instance of the defendants.

       Held: We notice that on scrutiny of the evidence on record the learned Single Judge has come to hold that Ujyarabai was about 90 years, had very poor vision and, was staying in the house of Parman and her son – in – law. He has accepted the version of the witnesses that the old lady had suffered three paralytic attacks before her death. Because of her inability to look after herself she had moved to the house of the appellant herein. The sale – deed has been executed while she was living with Parmanand at his house. On analysis of the evidence the learned Judge arrived at the conclusion that Parman and was in a position to dominate the will of Ujyarabai and was to gain undue advantage out of the transaction. That apart, we find that there is detailed discussion in regard to payment of consideration. On scrutiny of the sale – deed it is beamingly clear that out of the consideration money of Rs. 14,000/ – only Rs. 2,000/ – was paid and the balance sum was adjusted towards the previous loan incurred by Ujyarabai from her son – in – law, Parmanand Ex. D – 2 has been produced by the defendants to indicate that certain amount was borrowed by the mother – in – law of Parmanand. Ex. D – 2 refers to certain account which covers the period from 1955 to 1971. The learned Single Judge has expressed grave doubts regarding these transactions on the ground that if certain sum was due to the defendants, the same would have been adjusted at the time of execution of the earlier sale – deed under Ex. D – 4. No explanation has been offered by the defendants for such non – adjustment. In addition to this there is also discussion by the learned Judge that most of the loan amount as reflected under Ex. D – 2, are relatable to marriage expenses of three daughters of Parman and. The story putforth by Parman and that his mother – in – law incurred loan from him to meet the marriage expenses of his daughters has been disbelieved by the learned Judge. The other loan as indicated under the document was advanced for the purpose of digging a well. The same has also not been accepted for lack of cogent evidence. The learned Judge has further taken note of the evidence of Misrilal (DW 1) who has admitted that on the date of scribing of document i.e. 26.8.72 Parmanand had paid a sum of Rs. 1,111/ – . This evidence runs contrary to the version of the defendants. On consideration of these evidence a finding has been recorded that no consideration was passed in the transaction.

       2. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge are based on close scrutiny of the evidence on record. The story advanced by Parmanand that his mother – in – law incurred loan from him for the marriage of her grand – daughters, namely, the daughters of Parman and, is a novel plea and prudence demands that it should be thrown out of consideration. Once the story of adjustment is disbelieved, there remains no iota of doubt that Ex. D – 5 was not for consideration. Once it is held that the sale deed was without consideration, the same has to be declared as illegal and void, and accordingly we do so, and concur with the findings of the learned Single Judge. Appeal dismissed.