2021 (12) TMI 147 - SC - Indian Laws

Owner of suit property - joint ownership - legality and validity of the power of attorney and the sale deeds - contention of the respondents is that instead of purchasing suit properties only in the name of Sudarshan Kumar, the appellant incorporated his name in the sale deeds along with Sudarshan Kumar - HELD THAT - It is an admitted position that the said Sudarshan Kumar did not step into the witness box. Moreover, there is a finding recorded by the District Court that no evidence was adduced by Sudarshan Kumar to prove that certain amounts were transmitted by him from a foreign country to the appellant. This finding has not been disturbed by the High Court. The modified decree passed by the High Court by the impugned Judgment and order proceeds on the basis of the finding that the appellant and Sudarshan Kumar were the joint owners of the suit properties as Sudarshan Kumar failed to establish his claim that he was the sole owner of the suit properties. The respondents have not chosen to challenge the impugned Judgment and order and therefore, the finding that the appellant and Sudarshan Kumar were the joint owners of the suit properties has become final. Admittedly, there is no evidence adduced on record by Sudarshan Kumar that his minor sons had any source of income at the relevant time and that they paid him consideration as mentioned in the sale deed. Similarly, no evidence was adduced to show that Sudarshan Kumar s wife had any source of income and that she paid consideration mentioned in the sale deed. An issue was specifically framed by the Trial Court on the validity of the sale deeds. There is a specific finding recorded by the District Court that there was no evidence adduced to show that Sudarshan Kumar s wife and minor children paid consideration as shown in the sale deeds. In fact, before the District Court, it was pleaded that Sudarshan Kumar s wife had brought some money from her parents - undisputed factual position is that the respondents failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the minor sons had any source of income and that they had paid the consideration payable under the sale deed. They did not adduce any evidence to show that Sudarshan Kumar s wife was earning anything and that she had actually paid the consideration as mentioned in the sale deed. It is the specific case made out in the plaints as originally filed that the sale deeds are void as the same are without consideration. It is pleaded that the same are sham as the purchasers who were minor sons and wife of Sudarshan Kumar had no earning capacity. No evidence was adduced by Sudarshan Kumar about the payment of the price mentioned in the sale deeds as well as the earning capacity at the relevant time of his wife and minor sons. Hence, the sale deeds will have to be held as void being executed without consideration. Hence, the sale deeds did not affect in any manner one half share of the appellant in the suit properties - It was not necessary for the appellant to specifically claim a declaration as regards the sale deeds by way of amendment to the plaint. The reason being that there were specific pleadings in the plaints as originally filed that the sale deeds were void. A document which is void need not be challenged by claiming a declaration as the said plea can be set up and proved even in collateral proceedings. As no title was transferred under the said sale deeds, the appellant continues to have undivided half share in the suit properties. That is how the District Court passed the decree holding that the appellant is entitled to joint possession of the suit properties along with Sudarshan Kumar. Therefore, for the reasons, by setting aside the impugned Judgment and order of the High Court, the decree passed by the District Court deserves to be restored - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of suit properties
2. Validity of power of attorney and sale deeds
3. Bar of limitation for seeking declaration
4. Payment of consideration for sale deeds
5. Entitlement to compensation for tube well

Detailed Analysis:

Ownership of Suit Properties:
The appellant and his elder brother acquired the suit properties through sale deeds dated 12th August 1976 and 19th October 1976. The appellant executed a power of attorney in favor of his brother, who then executed sale deeds transferring parts of the suit properties to his minor sons and wife. The appellant filed suits for injunction and possession, later amended to include a declaration that the power of attorney and sale deeds were null and void. The trial court dismissed the suits, holding that the appellant was a benamidar and the brother was the sole owner. The District Court, however, found that both were joint owners, a finding upheld by the High Court.

Validity of Power of Attorney and Sale Deeds:
The trial court upheld the validity of the power of attorney and sale deeds. The District Court, however, found that the sale deeds were without consideration and therefore void, granting joint possession to the appellant. The High Court upheld the validity of the power of attorney but found the suits for declaration barred by limitation. The High Court directed the brother to pay the appellant his share in the sale consideration with interest.

Bar of Limitation for Seeking Declaration:
The High Court held that the suits for declaration of invalidity of the sale deeds were barred by limitation, as the prayers were incorporated belatedly. The appellant argued that the original plaints already contained assertions that the sale deeds were null and void due to lack of consideration, and thus, the amendment was not necessary for seeking a declaration.

Payment of Consideration for Sale Deeds:
The District Court found no evidence that the brother's minor sons and wife paid the consideration mentioned in the sale deeds. The High Court observed that the sale consideration was not exorbitant but did not address the lack of evidence regarding the purchasers' sources of income. The Supreme Court noted that the sale deeds were void as they were executed without consideration, and thus, did not transfer any title.

Entitlement to Compensation for Tube Well:
The trial court held that the prayer for compensation for the tube well was barred by provisions of Rule 2 of Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The District Court rejected the prayer for compensation, a decision not specifically addressed in the appeals.

Supreme Court Judgment:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the District Court's decree. The Supreme Court held that the sale deeds were void due to lack of consideration, and thus, the appellant continued to have an undivided half share in the suit properties. The issue of limitation did not arise as the original plaints already challenged the validity of the sale deeds. The decree for joint possession was restored, and there was no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →