THOMMAN Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD MUKUNDAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question raised in the revision is whether the four documents executed by the petitioner in favour of his four sons on 27-12-1969, purporting to be sale deeds could in law be allowed to be treated as deeds of gift and whether on the materials on record they could be so treated. The documents conveyed 3.69 1/2 acres, 2.581/2 acres, 2.97 1/2 acres and 3.66 acres and although the extent of the properties conveyed was different, the amount of consideration recited in them was the same sum of Rs 3,000/- which was stated to have been paid previously. They recited that the parcels of property were already in the possession of the alienees under oral sales and that the deeds were being executed owing to their insistence. In the proceedings initiated on the return filed by him, the petitioner raised an objection that the deeds were sales without receipt of consideration and were in the nature of gifts and should not therefore be invalidated. The Taluk Land Board did not accept this contention and proceeded to determine the petitioner's holding on the basis that they were sales and invalid sales at that. The petitioner challenges the decision of the Taluk Land Board that they are sales and not gifts.

(2.) The first question at issue is whether in view of the recitals in the deeds as to the acknowledgment of consideration, it is open to the petitioner to contend otherwise counsel for the petitioner arguing that he can while the learned Government Pleader maintaining the contrary. In Ismail Mussajee Mookerdam v. Hafiz Boo, ILR 33 Calcutta 773 (PC.), a son (the appellant) brought a suit to set aside certain transactions entered into by his mother, in favour of his sister (the respondent) by which the latter acquired most of the mother's properties. The Trial Court and appellate court agreed in rejecting the plaintiff's allegation that at the time of the transactions the mother was of unsound mind but while the Trial Court accepted the other allegation of undue influence, the appellate court rejected it and dismissed the suit. On appeal the Privy Council upheld the latter finding (which alone was challenged before it). The appellant however contended that there was no valid transfer to the daughter and that she was a benamidar for her mother and that the whole property formed part of her estate. After noting that the mother was prompted by hostility to the appellant and the desire to exclude him from inheritance, the Privy Council observed that one of the transactions under which some property was purchased in the name of the daughter with the funds emanating from the mother's estate could not be treated as benami, considering the mother's object which could not have been attained by any benami transaction. As to another item of property it was the subject of a sale direct to the daughter for Rs. 10,000/- recited to be a prior receipt. After repeating the motive that actuated the mother and finding that the payment of price recited in the sale deed is not true, the Privy Council observed:

(3.) It is obvious from this case that their Lordships did not go by the consideration stated in the transaction as true or conclusive, but on the evidence rejected that statement and the evidence of the respondent daughter, and held that it was not a sale but a gift with an imaginary consideration,