MILKHI RAM Vs. JIWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's appeal in suit decreed against him by the two Courts below. Agricultural land measuring 9 bighas and 18 biswas was sold by Arjan Singh, a Jat of village Maur, to Milkhi Ram Mahajan of the same place with sanction of the Collector for the purposes of laying out a garden. The consideration for the sale was Rs. 1000/ - and it was effected through a registered deed dated 26 -10 -1999 Bikram. Arjan Singh died in Poh 2000. Jiwan Singh and Mara minors, through the guardianship of their mother Sham Kaur, and Kheon Singh sons of Arjan Singh thereafter brought the suit giving rise to this appeal for possession of the land alleging that it was ancestral and that the sale was without consideration and necessity. Milkhi Ram controverted the allegations and resisted the suit on various grounds. In the alternative it was contended that the Plaintiffs could not get possession of the land without paying costs of the improvements made by him, and these he estimated at Rs. 5000/ -. The trial Court decided all the legal objections with respect to the maintainability of the suit against the Defendant and further held that the land was ancestral, that necessity for a sum of Rs. 342/ - only had been proved and that the Defendant was not entitled to any costs for improvements. A decree on payment of Rs. 342/ - was, consequently, passed in favour of the Plaintiffs. It may here be observed that the items that the trial Court held for necessity amounted to Rs. 356/ 12/ - and it was probably by mistake that the total thereof was given as Rs. 342/ -. On defendant's appeal the District Judge, Bhatinda, concurred with all the findings of the trial Court except that he found another sum of Rs. 224/ - to have been proved for necessity and thus increased the amount on payment of which the Plaintiffs were entitled to get possession of the land to Rs. 580/12/ -. As regards improvements he was of the opinion that it was not proved that any improvements had in fact been effected before the institution of the suit and that even if some of the improvements were so made the Defendant was not entitled to get from the Plaintiffs the amount spent on them because he had not acted bona fide in the transaction in question. The vendee Defendant has come in second appeal.

(2.) SHRI Jagan Nath, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, has assailed the judgment of the District Judge only on two points, one of necessity and the other of costs for improvements. The sale consideration of Rs. 1000 consisted of the following items. (1) Rs. 200/ - due to the vendee on a bond dated 29 -11 -1998. (2) Rs. 200/ - paid to the vendor at home for household expenses and registration charges. (3) Rs. 600/ - paid before the Sub -Registrar for household and agricultural expenses and for liquidating of debts due from the vendor. The Courts below have allowed the first and disallowed the second item. Out of Rs. 600/ - paid before the Sub -Registrar the trial Court. held for necessity items aggregating to Rs. 156/12/ - while the District Judge added, another item of Rs. 224/ - to it and this brought, the total to Rs. 380/12/ -. As regards item No. 2 Rs. 200/ -, it is contended that it was only, by mistake of the scribe that in the sale deed, this item was mentioned to have been paid at home for household and registration expenses, while in fact an equal amount was due to the vendee on a Bahi account. The position taken by the vendee at the trial was that to start with Rs. 41/ - were advanced to the vendor fort the purchase of an ox on Har Badi 6, 1995 (Ex. DK was produced to evidence this debt), that a balance of Rs. 80/ - in the year 1995 and another for Rs. 125/4/ - in 1998 marked as Exs. DJ and DL respectively were struck in the account book and that an amount of Rs. 202/6/ - was due to the vendee on this, account at the date of the sale. Rs. 2/6/ - was given up and the rest of the debt was credited because it formed the part of the sale consideration. Marginal witnesses to prove the various entries in the account -book were produced but the entry on the credit side which recited the manner in which the debt was liquidated has remained unproved. If this entry is left out of consideration, as it should be, there remains no documentary evidence to prove that the debt, even if it was due, formed part of the sale consideration. The recitals in the sale deed, as already observed, were obviously against this assertion. According to the 1 deed the amount was received in lump sum at home and a part of it was to be utilised for registration expenses. If the entire amount was to be credited towards an antecedent debt] I cannot imagine that the scribe would have made a mistake to describe it differently and state that a part of it was meant for registration expenses. I am, therefore, in perfect agreement with the uniform finding of the Courts. below with respect to this item. (His Lordship then considered the question of the improvements made by the Defendant and the liability of the Plaintiffs to pay 'for them and disagreeing with the District Judge came to the conclusion that the total expenditure incurred by the Defendant came to Rs. 2500.)

(3.) THE principle underlying these provisions of law is that no man should enrich himself at the expense of another and that consequently where the Defendant had made improvements in good faith as a bona fide occupant of land and in the belief that the land is his own, the Plaintiff who obtains the benefit of the expenditure which has increased the value of the property, ought to reimburse the Defendant for the expenditure so incurred. 'American Baptist Foreign Mission Society v. Pattabhiramayya', AIR 1919 Mad 685 was a similar case in which the principles of Section 51, Transfer of Property Act were held to be applicable where a purchaser from a Hindu believing in good faith that he had acquired an absolute title to the property effected improvements on it, but it was afterwards found that there was no necessity for the sale. In - 'Lachmi Prasad v. Lachmi Narain' : AIR 1928 All 41 a Hindu father, both on his own account and also as guardian of his son, executed a sale of joint family property and the transferee spent a considerable amount for improvement of the said property. The son brought a suit to' recover the property and the Court found that there was no necessity for the sale. By the application of Section 51, Transfer of Property Act or Section 68, Contract Act the Plaintiff was held liable to pay compensation for improvements effected by the transferee.