BHAGWATI CHARAN Vs. HIRDAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by defendant No. 1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was for a declaration that two sale-deeds executed by one Mt. Radhika Kuer in favour of the defendants were not binding on the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed in respect of one of the sale-deeds only, namely, the sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 1, executed on the 17th of January 1944. The suit was dismissed in respect of the claim relating to the other sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 2. Hence, this appeal by defendant No. 1 alone. The sale-deed in favour of the appellant purported to be for a consideration for Rs. 2,000/- only. The consideration consisted of the following items; (1) a sum of Rs. 800/- stated to be due to the appellant on the foot of a 'sudbharna' bond executed by Naga Singh, husband of Mt. Radhika Kuer, the 'sudhbharna' bond being of the date, 27th of August 1940; (2) another sum of Rs. 800/- said to be due to the appellant from Mt. Radhika Kuer on the basis of a handnote executed by her dated the 18th of June 1943; (3) a sum of Rs. 57/8/-being the interest on the aforesaid handnote; (4) a sum of Rs. 320/- said to be due to one Sudkhnan-dan on a handnote stated to have been executed by Mt. Radhika Kuer on the 24th of June 1943; and (5) a sum of Rs. 22/8/- stated to be the interest on the handnote of Sukhnandan.

(2.) Several questions arose for decision in the Courts below. One of the questions was whether Mt. Radhika Kuer was a concubine of Naga Singh or his wife. Another question was whether the plaintiffs were the reversioners of Naga Singh. On these two questions, the Courts below found: (1) that Radhika Kuer was the married wife of Naga Singh, and (2) that the plaintiffs were the reversioners of Naga Singh. These findings have not been challenged before us. The appeal must, therefore, be considered and decided on the basis of the two findings mentioned above.

(3.) The Courts below also concurrently found that, except for the sum of Rs. 800/- which was due to the appellant from Naga Singh on the foot of the sudbharna bond, no consideration had passed for the sale-deed. They hold that the appellant had failed to prove passing of consideration for the handnote stated to be in his favour; they also held that Mt. Radhika Kuer did not borrow any money from Sukhnandan, nor was sukhnandan paid by the appellant. The Courts below also held that the appellant made no bona fide enquiry, and, therefore, he was not an honest purchaser; in other words, they held that the sale as a whole was not justified by legal necessity. On these findings, the Courts below gave a decree in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to the sale-deed in favour of the appellant dated the 17th January 1944.