Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7362 OF 2003
JAGANNATH (D) THRU LRS. & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SUNDARBAI (D) THRU LRS. & ANR. ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Impleadment applications are allowed.
2. The plaintiff, who is now represented by his
legal heirs, filed a suit before the trial court
th
through his next friend and guardian Champalal on 30
th
December, 1960, praying that the Sale Deed dated 25
July, 1956, executed by defendant No. 2 Sundar Bai, his
mother, a pardanasheen lady, during his minority in
favour of defendant No.1 Jagannath be set aside as the
sale had been effected without legal necessity and
under the undue influence of defendant No. 1. On
notice, defendant No. 2 i.e. the plaintiff's mother
supported the claim of the plaintiff and suit was
contested only by defendant No. 1 who is the vendee.
In his written statement, it was pointed out that sale
2
deed had been executed for valid consideration on
account of legal necessity and to discharge an
antecedent debt and that the suit had been filed by
the plaintiff in collusion with his mother. The suit
was decreed by the trial court and it was held that the
sale was without legal necessity and that defendant no.
1 had exercised undue influence on defendant No. 2 as
she was a pardanasheen lady. The matter was thereafter
taken in appeal by defendant No. 1 which was
dismissed, though some of the observations with regard
to the undue influence were set aside. The defendant
still aggrieved filed a Second Appeal before the High
Court. The High Court framed the following substantial
questions of law:-
“1. Whether the finding to the effect
that the sale-deed executed in favour of
the defendants was without legal
necessity and was not for any benefit of
the minor, is contrary to the
documentary and other evidence produced
in the case and is liable to be set
aside?
2. Whether Sundar Bai had one
half share in the suit property and at
least to that share the defendants
became entitled under the sale-deed?
3. Whether in view of the act
that the plaintiff had not made any
claim with regard to the mesne profits
for the period prior to the institution
of the suit, his claim for future mesne
profits could not be decreed?”
3
At the time of arguments, it was conceded before the
High Court that question No. 3 was not required to be
answered in the light of the Full Bench decision of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Amar Singh v. Chandra
Shekhar Rao reported in AIR 1984 M.P. 1. The High
Court nevertheless confirmed the judgments of the
courts below on the other two questions of law and
dismissed the appeal. The present matter is before us
after the grant of special leave.
3. We find on a bare perusal of question Nos. 1 and
2 that have been raised before the High Court that they
are not substantial questions of law and are based on
an appreciation of the evidence. The High Court, has
in its judgment, dealt with the evidence to justify the
conclusion that the sale was without any legal
necessity and one of the reasons that weighed with the
High Court was that the husband of defendant No. 2,
Sundar Bai was the owner of 110 bighas of agricultural
land while the sale had been effected for a paltry sum
of Rs. 605/- which clearly revealed that there was no
legal necessity more particularly as some other pieces
of land had already been sold by Sundar Bai earlier.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however,
4
submitted that even assuming that question No.1 had
been correctly answered,the defendant appellant was
entitled to one half share in the suit property as the
said property belonged to Sundar Bai alone. This
matter has also been dealt with by the High Court in
para 10 of the judgment with a positive finding that
the land that had been sold to the defendant-appellant
belonged to the minor and nobody else. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that no interference is
called for in this appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. Dismissed.
..................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
..................J
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN]
NEW DELHI
MAY 06, 2010.
5