Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8868
P.SOMARAJAN, J
BALAGOPALAN – Appellant
Versus
P.RAJENDRAKUMAR – Respondent
FAO NO. 16 OF 2023
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN, P.B.KRISHNAN, SABU GEORGE, M.J.SHINSA MOLE, MANU VYASAN PETER, ABRAHAM BABU KALLIVAYALIL, M.RETHEESHKUMAR
A life interest in property does not nullify the ability to transfer or alienate the property, as such transactions remain valid subject to the life interest.
Headnote:
Property - Declaration of Documents - Act Section List - The court addressed the validity of sale deeds executed under a life interest, determining that while such interests exist, they do not preclude the transfer of property, influencing the decision to set aside the trial court's interim injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The first defendant executed a deed of sale to the second defendant, who sold it to the third defendant. The property was originally part of a larger parcel, with a life interest reserved for the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought to declare these transactions void.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the plaintiff's claim unsustainable, stating that a life interest does not invalidate subsequent transfers. The absence of a prima facie case led to the conclusion that an interim injunction could not be maintained.
Issues: The main issue was whether the sale deeds could be declared void given the existence of a life interest over the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court articulated that a life interest does not render property incapable of transfer; therefore, legitimate transfers made are valid while respecting the life interest.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the interim injunction was set aside.
JUDGMENT
It is a case where the first defendant had executed a deed of sale – Ext.A8 in favour of the second defendant, who in turn executed another deed of transfer – Ext.A10 sale deed in favour of the third defendant with respect to a part of large extent of 33 cents. The abovesaid property is a part of large extent of 1 Acre 94.25 cents originally held by the grandfather of first defendant one Chokko. He was having two male children Alexander and Mathew. Under Ext.A1 settlement deed, he had given A schedule property to his son Mathew and B schedule to the other son Alexander. A life interest was reserved in favour of the wife of Alexander, the plaintiff herein over item No.9 of B schedule. The first defendant (one among the sons) thereafter sold pieces of land to third persons and the balance extent was only 33 cents. It is out of that 33 cents, he sold another 8 cents to second defendant, who in turn to third defendant under Exts.A8 and A10 sale deeds respectively. The prayer in the suit is to declare these two documents void. An interim injunction application was maintained against the purchasers not to trespass upon plaint A and B schedule properties and from making any construction thereof and from committing any mischief. The suit as framed for a declaration that the abovesaid two documents void, prima facie appears to be unsustainable. Merely because a life interest was created over the property would not make the property incapable of transfer or alienation. Any of such transfer or alienation would stand valid subject to the life interest reserved. As such, there is no prima facie case for the relief of declaring the abovesaid two documents void. Necessarily, no interim injunction can be granted, unless there is a prima facie debatable case. The interim injunction granted by the trial court will stand set aside and the appeal will stand allowed accordingly. The trial court shall dispose of the suit within six months untrammelled by any of the abovesaid observations. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 31.03.2023. Appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
