GONDULAL RATANLAL Vs. ABDUL SATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE field in suit, survey No. 29 in mauza Palaskhed Nago in the Buldana district, with an area of 25 acres, 11 gunthas and an assessment of Rs. 31-2-0, was given by Government to Shaikh Hyder in 1927-28 as a reward for military service. Shaikh Hyder became indebted and on 9th September 1931 he axecuted a document, Ex. D-l, called a mehrnama by which he purported to transfer this field to his wife Dulanbi for a consideration of Rs. 600 made up of Rs. 125 said to be due to her on account of mehr and Rs. 475 said to have been borrowed from her and spent on improving the field. Shortly afterwards Shaikh Hyder died. His creditors, who had obtained decrees either against him or against his legal representatives, attached the field, and eventually on 24th February 1937 Dulanbi, purporting to act on behalf of herself and as guardian of the minor children of Shaikh Hyder and herself, executed a sale deed of this field in favour of the defendant Gondulal for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 1500. Gondulal, defendant 1 Was placed in possession, and he transferred a life interest in this field to his wife Godavaribai, defendant 2.

(2.) THE present suit was brought by the surviving son and daughter of Shaikh Hyder for possession of their share in this field on the contention that Dulanbi had no power to sell their share in the field and that they were not bound by the sale. The lower Courts held that the plaintiffs were not bound by the sale and were entitled to a decree for possession of their share.

(3.) THE only occasion, on which it ever appears to have been acted on was on 1-3-1933 when Dulanbi executed a mortgage deed (Ex. D-2) in favour of Vithal for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 300, of which Bs 200 was required to repay a taccavi loan to Government. In that document she stated that this property had been given to her in mehr on 9.9-1931. On no other occasion, however, was it acted on. When the field was attached in execution against the legal representatives of Shaikh Hyder no objection was ever preferred by Dulanbi that the field was hers alone, and when she executed the sale deed of 24-2-1937 in order to pay off these debts she executed it on behalf of herself, and the minor children. In these circumstances the lower Courts were justified in holding that the transaction of 9-9-1931 was a merely nominal transaction and that the title in the field did not thereby pass to Dulanbi.