Skip to content


Gouri Vs. Tirumaya Bhatta and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ17
AppellantGouri
RespondentTirumaya Bhatta and ors.
Cases ReferredMutteeram Kowar v. Gopaul Saboo
Excerpt:
- .....reversioner at the time of the death of the widow, and does not offer to pay off what was binding on the reversioner. in fact she only asks for a decree declaring that her share in the property is not bound on the ground that the consideration in the deed is false and fictitious. she has no share in the property and may never have any share in it, and the consideration in the deed is not false or fictitious.7. we dismiss the second appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that a sale-deed executed by the 2nd defendant in respect of immoveable property belonging to her late father is invalid to bind her share of the property after her mother's death on the ground that the consideration mentioned in it was false and fictitious.

2. The plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are the only daughters of one Narayana Bhatta, deceased. The 2nd defendant is his widow, and the first defendant is the husband of the 3rd defendant. The sale was by the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant, her son-in-law.

3. It is found by both the lower Courts that the consideration mentioned in the deed is not false or fictitious.

4. The consideration was Rs. 2,500. This consisted, according to the finding of the District Judge, partly of a debt incurred by the deceased, partly by various proper items for necessary ceremonies and funeral expenses, partly Rs. 70 paid to plaintiff and the 3rd defendant (making Rs. 140) and a sum of Rs. 1,000 to be kept with the 1st defendant till the death of the 2nd defendant and then paid in equal shares to the plaintiff and her sister, the 3rd defendant; as consideration for being permitted to retain the money, the 1st defendant was to pay Rs. 55 a year for her life time for her maintenance.

5. In these circumstances, the plaintiff's suit necessarily, in our opinion, fails and is rightly dismissed. The property was sold for debts binding on the reversioner, and, though even more money was obtained by the sale than was required for that purpose, the sale is not void and cannot be set aside except on payment of the amount binding on the reversioner with interest when the widow dies - see Phool Chund Lal v. Raghubuns (1867) 9 W.R. 109, Mutteeram Kowar v. Gopaul Saboo (1873) 11 B.L.R. 416 and S.A. 575 of 1905 (1907) 18 M.L.J. 11.

6. Here the plaintiff asks for a declaratory decree (which in any case is a purely discretionary decree) that the sale is not binding on her share after her mother's death. She does not ask for a decree declaring the rights of the reversioner at the time of the death of the widow, and does not offer to pay off what was binding on the reversioner. In fact she only asks for a decree declaring that her share in the property is not bound on the ground that the consideration in the deed is false and fictitious. She has no share in the property and may never have any share in it, and the consideration in the deed is not false or fictitious.

7. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.


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