Skip to content


Kisondas Guru Laxmandas Bairagi Vs. Dhondu Walad Tukaram Narvade and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1920)ILR64Bom542
AppellantKisondas Guru Laxmandas Bairagi
RespondentDhondu Walad Tukaram Narvade and ors.
Excerpt:
contract - sale--consideration--past co-habitation, whether good consideration. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860].sections 124-a, 153-a, 153-b, 292, 293 & 295a; [f.i. rebello, smt v.k. tahilramani & a.s. oka, jj] declaration as to forfeiture of book held, the power can be exercised only if the government forms opinion that said publication contains matter which is an offence under either of sections 124-a, 153-a, 153-b, 292, 293, 295a of i.p.c., - that was not the 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 co-habitation 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..........no. 2 had been the mistress of defendant no. 1, the real consideration for the transaction was past co-habitation. that was not the 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 co-habitation 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 comes 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.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, 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 co-habitation. That was not the 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 co-habitation 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 comes 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 //