1937 (3) TMI 23 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the deed of surrender executed by a Hindu widow.
2. Validity of subsequent sale deeds executed by the plaintiff.
3. Applicability of Sections 39 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
4. Allegations of fraud and device to retain property.
5. Plaintiff's entitlement to declaratory relief.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Deed of Surrender Executed by a Hindu Widow:
The plaintiff sought to set aside a deed of surrender executed by a Hindu widow in favor of the plaintiff, arguing that it was not binding. The court examined whether the deed of surrender was void or voidable. It was noted that the widow executed the deed of surrender relinquishing her life estate in properties 7/1, 9/14, and 9/15 for a consideration of Rs. 4,999. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the deed of surrender was part of a fraudulent scheme. The court also noted that the plaintiff benefited from the deed and had no cause of action to challenge it under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act.

2. Validity of Subsequent Sale Deeds Executed by the Plaintiff:
The plaintiff also sought to set aside two subsequent sale deeds executed by him in favor of defendants Nos. 2, 3, and 4. The court found that the sale deeds were for consideration and were binding on the plaintiff. The court emphasized that the plaintiff could not claim that he had no title at the time of executing the sale deeds, as he had represented that he had title and received consideration for the sales. The court held that the plaintiff could not make contradictory allegations and was precluded from disputing his own title.

3. Applicability of Sections 39 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act:
The plaintiff's counsel argued that the case fell under Section 39 for cancellation of the deeds and under Section 42 for declaratory relief. The court explained that for relief under Section 39, the plaintiff must reasonably apprehend serious injury from the instrument being left outstanding. The court found no serious injury or reasonable apprehension of injury. Regarding Section 42, the court noted that the plaintiff must have a legal character or right to property, which the defendants must have denied. The court found that the conditions under Section 42 were not satisfied, as there was no hostility or denial of the plaintiff's rights by the defendants.

4. Allegations of Fraud and Device to Retain Property:
The plaintiff alleged that the transactions were a device to divide Chhita's property among the nominees of defendant No. 1. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the fraud and the allegation that the transactions were part of a single scheme. The court noted that the plaintiff's case was disbelieved by the learned First Class Subordinate Judge of Broach, and the appellate court agreed with this conclusion.

5. Plaintiff's Entitlement to Declaratory Relief:
The plaintiff sought a declaration that the deed of surrender and the sale deeds were not binding on him. The court found that the plaintiff had no legal character or right to the property apart from the surrender. The court emphasized that a reversioner who consents to an alienation by a widow is precluded from disputing the validity of the alienation. The court held that the plaintiff had no cause of action to seek declaratory relief under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, as the plaintiff failed to establish his case. The court found that the plaintiff had no cause of action to challenge the deed of surrender or the subsequent sale deeds, and the allegations of fraud were not proven. The court also noted that the plaintiff benefited from the transactions and could not dispute his own title. The judgment was concurred by both judges.