Skip to content


Gokarakonda Narasimha Rao Vs. Gokarakonda Pappanna and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1920)38MLJ327
AppellantGokarakonda Narasimha Rao
RespondentGokarakonda Pappanna and ors.
Cases Referred and Petherperumal Chetty v. Muniandy Servai I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....the finding of the subordinate judge that the one cent. of land in amalapur was included in the sale-deed exhibit a purely for the purpose of getting the deed registered by the sub-registrar of that place without any intention of passing title in it to the vendee. that finding is supported by the evidence and no valid objection has been urged against it. on that finding we must hold following the case in rama naik v. nagamuthu nachiar 43 ind.cas. 315 : 22 m.l.t. 516 that the present case falls within the principle enunciated by the privy council in harendra lal roy chowdhuri v. hart dasi debt i.l.r. (1914) c. 972 . the action of the parties in this case was a fraud on the registration law. the fact that there was land corresponding to the one cent. included in the deed, belonging to.....
Judgment:

1. We must accept the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the one cent. of land in Amalapur was included in the sale-deed Exhibit A purely for the purpose of getting the deed registered by the Sub-Registrar of that place without any intention of passing title in it to the vendee. That finding is supported by the evidence and no valid objection has been urged against it. On that finding we must hold following the case in Rama Naik v. Nagamuthu Nachiar 43 Ind.Cas. 315 : 22 M.L.T. 516 that the present case falls within the principle enunciated by the Privy Council in Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhuri v. Hart Dasi Debt I.L.R. (1914) C. 972 . The action of the parties in this case was a fraud on the registration law. The fact that there was land corresponding to the one cent. included in the deed, belonging to the vendor is not sufficient to take it out of that principle as the finding is that it was not intended that the deed should affect the land in any way.

2. On this view the sale-deed, Exhibit A, must be taken to have not been properly registered; and the title to A Schedule properties was therefore not validly conveyed to the 8th defendant.

3. The next question is as to limitation. Article 44 does not apply as there was no sale at all in law to be set aside. See Narayanan v. Lakshman I.L.R. 39 M. 456 and Petherperumal Chetty v. Muniandy Servai I.L.R. (1908) C. 551 The article really applicable is Article 144 but the period required for it has not expired yet. There is thus no bar by limitation.

4. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to have the A Schedule properties also included in the partition, But as pointed out by the respondent's Vakil the sum of rupees 6,000, the consideration for Exhibit A, was utilised to pay off a mortgage and for other purposes binding on the estate. This was found by the Munsif and the point was not controverted in the Lower Appellate Court as the Subordinate Judge notes. We think an equity arises in favour of the 8th defendant against the plaintiff on that finding which we adopt, that on the sale to him being invalidated the plaintiff should pay him a proportionate share of the moneys so utilised, viz., of the sum of rupees 6,000.

5. This second appeal must be allowed and the decree of the Lower Appellate Court must be modified as stated above. Each party will bear costs throughout with regard to A schedule properties.


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