PULLA GAVARAYAMMA Vs. TALISETTI SURYANARAYANA ANDOTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of possession of Survey No. 98/1 admeasuring 1 Acre. The plaintiff who is a married woman was the concubine of defendant No. 3. It is her case that she purchased the suit landfrom defendant No. 3 under a sale deed (Ex. A-1) dated 1st October 1965. Defendants 1 and2 are the sons of defendant No. 3. The suit landadmittedly belonged to defendant No. 3. In defence it was contended by all the defendants including defendant No. 3 that the sale in favour of the plaintiff was invalid because there was no consideration for the transaction andsecondly because it was given away by defendant No, 3 to the plaintiff for immoral purposes. It was also contended that the sale transaction was sham andnominal andthat it was executed by defendant No. 3 under pressure andcoercion from the plaintiff. It was next pleaded that there were negotiations for compromise between the parties andthat the plaintiff had agreed to reconvey the suit property to defendant No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 2,500/- under an agreement dated 14th September, 1966. Defendant No. 3 admitted' to have developed illicit intimacy with the plaintiff in August 1965.

(2.) The learned trial Judge found that the suit landwas the self-acquired property of defendant No. 3 andthat the sale transaction in favour of the plaintiff was not supported by consideration. He, therefore, held that it was a sham andnominal transaction. Secondly, he held that the agreement to reconvey the property had been proved. In view of the findings which he recorded, he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the appellate court. The learned Appellate Judge for slightly different reasons came to the same conclusions anddismissed the appeal.

(3.) It is that appellate decree which is challenged by the plaintiff in this second appeal. The finding that the sale transac tion was not supported by consideration or was sham andnominal is ordinarily a finding of fact with which this court cannot interfere in second appeal. It has been found by the learned appellate Judge that the sale transaction was not supported by cash consideration. Secondly, according to him, it was given over by defendant No. 3 to the plaintiff for immoral purposes. He has further held that in view of the finding that the suit landwas self-acquired property of defendant No. 3 it was open to defendant No. 3 to give away the property to the plaintiff for any purpose whatsoever if he so chose. Admittely, the transaction by defendant No. 3 in favour of the plaintiff was a transaction of sale. 'Sale' is defined in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act as transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid or part-promised. A sale transaction, therefore, to be valid must be supported by price which is paid or promised fully or in part. It is not the plaintiff's case that she had promised to pay the cash consideration nor is it her case that it was paid.