Skip to content


Bharath Singh Vs. Debi Dayal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2Ind.Cas.261
AppellantBharath Singh
RespondentDebi Dayal and ors.
Cases ReferredIn Bhikham Singh v. Har Parshad
Excerpt:
vendor and purchaser - agra tenancy act (ii of 1901, local)--exproprietary right, sale of--sale becoming infructuous--sale price cannot be recovered. - .....set aside. on this the lessee has now brought the present suit to recover the sum of rs. 1,105 paid as nazrana in accordance with the terms of the lease.2. the court of first instance decreed the suit for the sum of rs. 800 holding that that was the true amount of nazrana paid.3. on appeal the lower appellate court has found that as a matter of fact the two transactions, the sale and the lease, constitute one simultaneous transaction and that the nazrana was really the sale price of the appellant's exproprietary rights. in other words, it found that the sole object of the lease was to defeat the provisions of the tenancy act regarding exproprietary rights, that the consideration of the nazrana was unlawful and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the sum claimed.4......
Judgment:

1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows:

The plaintiff and his uncle, Dwarka Singh, are members of a joint Hindu family. On the 6th of June 1903 the defendants first party executed what purported to be a perpetual lease of their sir lands in certain villages in favour of the plaintiff Bharath Singh, who is a minor. On the 10th of June 1903 those defendants executed a sale-deed of their zamindari in those two villages for the consideration of Rs. 2,294-6 in favour of Dwarka Singh, the uncle. Both documents wore registered on the same day. A sum of Rs. 1,105 is entered in the lease as nazrana, which was paid by the lessee to the lessor after the registration. Subsequently to this the defendants, second party, who are members of the same family as the defendants first party, brought a suit to set aside the lease and the lease was as a result of that litigation set aside. On this the lessee has now brought the present suit to recover the sum of Rs. 1,105 paid as nazrana in accordance with the terms of the lease.

2. The Court of first instance decreed the suit for the sum of Rs. 800 holding that that was the true amount of nazrana paid.

3. On appeal the lower appellate Court has found that as a matter of fact the two transactions, the sale and the lease, constitute one simultaneous transaction and that the nazrana was really the sale price of the appellant's exproprietary rights. In other words, it found that the sole object of the lease was to defeat the provisions of the Tenancy Act regarding exproprietary rights, that the consideration of the nazrana was unlawful and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the sum claimed.

4. It has been urged before us on this appeal that under the terms of the lease the lessee was liable for rent and also liable to ejectment under the Tenancy Act; and that, therefore, whatever may have been the intention of the parties, there was in law no sale of the exproprietary rights and the plaintiff is entitled to recover. We do not find it possible to agree with this contention. Under the terms of the sale-deed the vendors transferred all their rights tinder the lease to the vendee. The vendee and the lessee are members of the same joint family and constitute one and the same person. Read together the two deeds amount to a sale of the zamindari and of the exproprietary rights of the vendor and the sum of Rs. 1,105 was the sale price of the exproprietary rights. The lease was executed merely with a view to circumvent the law which makes the sale of exproprietary rights unlawful. In Bhikham Singh v. Har Parshad 19 A. 35 it was held that the vendees could not recover from the vendors as compensation the consideration money which they had paid in respect of sir lands thus purchased. That ruling applies to the circumstances of the present case. The plaintiff appellant is not entitled to recover the sum ho paid as the sale price. The appeal fails and is dismissed but having regard to the circumstances of the case we order that each party shall bear his own costs both in this Court and in the lower Courts.


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