Skip to content


Kisandas Laxmandas Bairagi Vs. Dhondu Tukakam Narvade - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Second Appeal No. 240 of 1918
Judge
Reported in(1920)22BOMLR762; 57Ind.Cas.472
AppellantKisandas Laxmandas Bairagi
RespondentDhondu Tukakam Narvade
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
indian contract act (ix of 1872), sections 23, 24 - contract-consideration- unlawful consideration-past cohabitation. ;past cohabitation is not good consideration for a transfer of property. - - that was not case made out in the plaint, and if, as we are told, the point has never been decided in this court, we are decidedly of opinion now that past cohabitation will not be good consideration for the transfer of property. therefore whichever way we look at it, the plaintiff must fail and the appeal is dismissed with costs......no. 2 had been the mistress of defendant no. 1, the real consideration for the transaction was past cohabitation. that was not case made out in the plaint, and if, as we are told, the point has never been decided in this court, we are decidedly of opinion now that past cohabitation will not be good consideration for the transfer of property. the facts of this case go even further, because it was not merely the case of plaintiff no. 2 being the mistress of defendant no. 1, but of the connection between the two being adulterous, as plaintiff no. 2 had a husband living. therefore it conies to this that the transaction was really a gift, and as the property was joint family property between the defendants, and there had been no partition, the fact that the first defendant purported to.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. The plaintiffs sued for possession of a house as owners, alleging a sale for Rs. 100 to plaintiff No. 2 by defendant No. 1. The trial Court found that there was no money consideration for the sale, and that as the plaintiff No. 2 had been the mistress of defendant No. 1, the real consideration for the transaction was past cohabitation. That was not case made out in the plaint, and if, as we are told, the point has never been decided in this Court, we are decidedly of opinion now that past cohabitation will not be good consideration for the transfer of property. The facts of this case go even further, because it was not merely the case of plaintiff No. 2 being the mistress of defendant No. 1, but of the connection between the two being adulterous, as plaintiff No. 2 had a husband living. Therefore it conies to this that the transaction was really a gift, and as the property was joint family property between the defendants, and there had been no partition, the fact that the first defendant purported to sell half the house would not thereby effect a partition. Therefore whichever way we look at it, the plaintiff must fail and the appeal is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //