GANGADHARAN Vs. JANARDHANA MALLAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Second Appeal No. 751/77 dated 19-7-77, this appeal by special leave has been preferred by the first defendant in the said suit, namely O.S. No. 27/67 on the file of Subordinate Court, Irinjalakuda. The said suit was filed by the respondents Nos. 1-5 along with the Ramanathan who died pending appeal before the District Court for partition and separate possession of their 6/8 share in the property, namely, 66 cents with building thereon in Kodungallur (Kerala). The appellants (first defendant) was the purchaser of the suit property from the father of the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1-5) under sale deed dated 2-4-55 (Ex. P2). The property sold under Ex. P2 was one of the items of the joint family property. When the sale took place, the plaintiffs were minors. After the death of the father and after 12 years of the sale in question the present suit was filed attacking the validity and binding nature of the sale of the ground that the sale was for a grossly inadequate consideration; that there was no pressing need to alienate the property; that the income from other properties of the joint family was sufficient to wipe off the debts if any and that most of the debts for the discharge of which Ex. P2 was executed were bogus in nature. The sale consideration was for a sum of Rs. 9,000/-.

(2.) The first respondent (appellant herein) resisted the suit by contending that the suit was speculative one, the vendors were obliged to alienate comparatively a small fraction of the family property for the purpose of carrying on the business; that the income from other family properties were not sufficient for discharging the liabilities and that the sale was for adequate consideration.

(3.) The trial Court after elaborate consideration found that out of sale consideration of Rs. 9,000/- a sum of Rs. 5,750/- factually was utilised to discharge genuine antecedent debts and the sale consideration was adequate. Consequently, the trial Court upheld the validity of Ex. P2 sale deed and dismissed the suit.