9911796707
TMI Blog1924 (11) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... surrender was paid nine months after the sale, during which period the defendant was in possession as a lessee. There can be no doubt that the agreement between the parties was that Venkatrao should sell the villages including his occupancy rights in the sir lands, to the defendant. In this connection we may refer to Exhibit, P. 57, which is a letter from the defendant's father to Venkatrao, dated 3rd April 1913, in which he states: You have agreed to sell to us your villages (named) with the houses and moveable property ( c.) for ₹ 20,000 Exhibit P. 9 is an agreement executed by the defendant's father to Venkatrao on the same date as the alleged deed, which recites: We have agreed to purchase three villages (named) including the sir land for ₹ 20,000. ₹ 10,000 have been paid for the villages, and as the sir land cannot be sold without sanction, ₹ 5,000 is kept and will be paid after sanction is received, .... or if sanction is not granted, the occupancy rights should be surrendered and the balance of ₹ 5.000 will be paid with interest. In these circumstances we have no doubt that the agreement to sell the rights in the sir land and the agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing paid under it cannot be recovered. Reference is made to Bai Diwali v. Umedbhai Bhulabhai Patel [1916] 40 Bom. 614=36 I.C. 564=18 Bom L.R. 773 and Har Prasad Tewari v. Sheo Govind Tewari 1922 All. 134=44 All. 486=20 A.L.J 318. The sale of the villages, apart from the cultivating rights in the sir, was so far as the Tenancy law is concerned, a legal transaction apart from what may be said against it under the Hindu law. In the case of Bai Diwali v. Umedbhai Bhulabhai [1916] 40 Bom. 614=36 I.C. 564=18 Bom L.R. 773 the whole transaction was set aside, but that there was a mortgage of the sir land alone. In Ikramullah Khan v. Motichand [1911] 33 All. 695=11 I.C. 17=8 A.L.J. 826 the facts of which, as we have said, are very similar to those of the present case, the transaction was held void so far as the relinquishment of the ex-proprietary rights was concerned, and this was confirmed by the Privy Council as noted above. 6. The respondents rely on S. 24 of the Contract Act, which lays down that if any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or any one or any part of any one of several considerations for a single object is unlawful, the agreement is void. The law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land being altogether void as against the plaintiffs, they are not bound to repay the ₹ 5000 to the defendant. 9. The other part of the case refers to the sale of the villages The receipt of consideration has now been admitted. The general conclusions of the lower Court as regards the necessity for the transaction are that the reasons assigned by Venkatrao for wishing to get rid of the property, which is now admitted to be ancestral, are not made out. Although the villages are at a distance of nearly 100 miles from Nagpur, there is Railway communication most of the way and they are only a few miles from a Railway Station. The alleged malarial nature of the climate is no ground as Venkatrao did not himself live in the villages, but managed them through agents. 10. The learned Subordinate Judge has disbelieved the evidence regarding the rebuilding of the houses by Venkatrao. He finds that ₹ 1000 were spent shortly after the sale on the thread ceremony of one of the plaintiff's and that ₹ 14000 were lent on mortgage (Ex. D. 28) to one Yeshwant Narayanrao Deshpande, a relative of Venkatrao. There is no evidence that the defendant made enquiries as to the tru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pears to be that Venkatrao found these villages trouble some to manage and perhaps not profitable and wanted to rid himself of them. It is not necessary as argued by the learned Advocate for the respondents, that there should be a danger to the estate to be averted. The leading case of Hunoomanpersaud Panday v. Mt. Babooee Kunraj Koonweree (1854-57) 6 M.I.A. 393=18 W.R. 81=2 Sather 29=1 Sar 552 (P.C.) quoted by the lower. Court will show that the transaction will be upheld if it is of benefit to the estate. The other leading cases also quoted will show that the term benefit will not include the starting of a new business. The bulk of the consideration ₹ 14 000 was lent by Venkatrao on mortgage to his brother-in-law shortly after the sale. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the interest on this mortgage amounting to ₹ 1,050 per annum greatly exceeds the profits of the villages which are found by the lower Court to be ₹ 280 per annum. It is contended that this does not take into account the wages of the local agents, who Sitabai says were employed, and of the necessary expenses of frequent visits on the part of the owner, which cannot have amounted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
