RAMADHIN SINGH Vs. GAJRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's Letters Patent appeal from the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendants-respondents to set aside a sale deed executed on 18 August 1882 by the plaintiff's grand, mother, Mt. Kausilla, in favour of the defendants ancestors. The plaintiff's case was that the sale was without legal necessity and was not binding on him. The property belonged to Tansukh Eai, who was the last male owner. He died in 1881 leaving his widow Mt. Kausilla, who succeeded to the property as a Hindu widow. She died in 1911 leaving a daughter, Mt. Inder Kuer, the mother of the plaintiff. Mt. Inder Kuer succeeded to the property on the death of Mt. Kausilla. Mt. Inder Kuer died in 1925 leaving the plaintiff as the heir. The defendants contended that the sale was executed for legal necessity and was valid. The trial Court found that out of the sale consideration, Rupees 2400, there was no necessity for Rs. 1150. It decreed the suit on the condition of the payment of Rupees 2400 by the plaintiff within two months. On appeal the learned Civil Judge found that there was legal necessity for a major portion of the sale consideration, that is Rs. 2000, and upheld the sale and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal to this Court, the decision of the learned Civil Judge was upheld by the learned single Judge.

(2.) It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the sale was without legal necessity and was therefore invalid. As stated above, the sale was for Rs. 2400. Out of it, Rs. 1250 were needed to pay off a mortgage dated 15 August 1880 which had been executed by Tansukh Rai. Rs. 400 were paid in cash before the execution of the mortgage deed. According to the defendants, this money was needed for the marriage of Mt. Kausilla's daughter, that is the plaintiff's mother. Rs. 250 were paid before the Sub-Registrar. Rs. 500 were left with the vendee to be paid subsequently to the vendor when she needed it. It has been proved by the defendants that the whole of this consideration was duly paid to the vendor. The learned Civil Judge has found that out of this consideration there was a valid necessity for Rs. 2000. As regards the balance of Rs. 400 he was of the opinion that it was not taken at the time of the execution of the sale and that therefore, even if it was spent on valid necessities, it could not be regarded as such a necessity as to justify the sale. This opinion of the lower Court is not correct, because the money was left with the vendee and was taken in small sums from time to time when it was needed. This fact itself shows that this money was required for actual needs which were contemplated at the time of the sale. There is nothing to show that the needs for which the money was taken subsequently out of this balance of Rs. 400 did not form part of the needs that existed and were in the contemplation of the vendor at the time of the sale. If a person needs money for maintenance and leaves a part of the consideration with the vendee and takes money out of it as it is needed, it cannot be said that the alienation is not justified by legal necessity. Similarly a person might need money for the marriage or education of his children which might take place after the alienation.

(3.) In order to prove the validity of an alienation, a transferee ought to prove either that there was legal necessity in fact or that he made proper and bona fide inquiries as to the existence of such necessity and did all that was reasonable to satisfy himself as to the existence of such necessity. Even if he fails to prove that there was necessity in fact, the alienation will be; upheld if he proves that he made such inquiries as aforesaid and that the facts represented to him were such as, if true, would have justified the transaction. He| is not bound to see or prove that the money paid or advanced by him was actually applied to meet the necessity. There is nothing to show what needs were represented to the vendee and whether he did or did not make any inquiry to satisfy himself of the existence of the needs represented to him. Both the vendor and the vendee; have died and more than 50 years have passed since the sale. All the direct evidence that was available at the time of the sale has disappeared. Where such a long period elapses since the sale took place, it is not reasonable to expect such full and; detailed evidence of the circumstances which; gave rise to the sale as in the case of alienation at a more recent date, and presumptions are permissible to fill in the details which have been obliterated by time : vide Chintamanibhatla Venkata Reddi V/s. Rani Sahera of Wadhwan (1920) 7 A.I.R. P.C. 64.