9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the family arrangement. 2. Ratification by the respondent. 3. Legal necessity of the transfer. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Family Arrangement: The respondent claimed that the alienations made by the widows of Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar were not binding on him. The trial court held that the arrangement between the two widows was a family arrangement binding on the respondent. However, the appeal court rejected this, stating that the impugned arrangement cannot be considered a bona fide family settlement binding on the respondent. It was conceded that the plea of surrender could not be sustained. 2. Ratification by the Respondent: The appellant argued that the respondent had ratified the impugned transaction by receiving benefits under it and was thus precluded from challenging its validity. The Supreme Court examined this argument in light of the principle that a person who assents to a transaction with full knowledge of his rights and takes benefit under it cannot later dispute its validity. The Court referred to the decision in Sahu Madho Das v. Pandit Mukand Ram, which established that reversioners could be precluded from avoiding an alienation by express ratification or by acts treating it as valid. However, the Court found that the respondent's conduct did not amount to ratification. The respondent was a minor at the time of the transaction and was not a party to it. His acceptance of the patta and his written statements did not amount to ratification of the original transaction. The Court concluded that the appellant failed to establish the plea of ratification against the respondent. 3. Legal Necessity of the Transfer: The High Court held that the impugned transfer was not justified by legal necessity. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the widow had obtained letters of administration with the limitation that she could not transfer the property without requisite sanction. The transaction was entered into under the guise of a family arrangement to avoid obtaining the requisite sanction. The document did not purport to be justified by legal necessity. Out of a total consideration of about Rs. 10,000/-, only Rs. 776/- represented debts due by the deceased, while other items did not constitute legal necessity. The Court concluded that the impugned transfer was not justified by legal necessity. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's findings that the family arrangement was not binding on the respondent, the respondent had not ratified the transaction, and the transfer was not justified by legal necessity. The respondent's suit for possession was decreed, and the case was directed to go before the Official Referee for the ascertainment of mesne profits.
|
