ARVIND @ ABASAHEB GANESH KULKARNI & ORS. versus ANNA @ DHANPAL PARISA CHOUGULE & ORS.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 816 · Decided: 22-01-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

816 
A 
ARVIND @ ABASAHEB GANESH KULKARNI & ORS. 
v. 
ANNA @ DHANPAL PARISA CHOUGULE & ORS. 
January 22, 1980 
B 
(N. L. UNTAWALIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J 
c 
D 
E 
r 
G 
II 
Mortgage-Minor brothers alleged that mortgage was not for legtil necrssity 
and that the sale was for inadequate consideration-Elder brother discharged' 
family debts-Small part of consideration not accounted for-Sale-Validity of. 
A mortgagor executed two- deeds of n1ortgage in favour of the faU1er of 
the appellants for Rs. 1600 and Rs. 1000 in respect of certain lands. 
Both 
the mortgages were possessory mortgages but the 
land was leased back to 
the mortgagor for a stipulated rent. 
The mortgagor died 
leaving 
behind 
him three sons, one adult and two minors. 
The adult 
son borrowed 
a 
further sum of Rs. 131 by executing a simple mortgage and purporting to act 
as the ~fanager of the joint family and the guardian of his minor brothers, 
executed a deed of sale in favour of the father of the appellants in respect 
of four out of ten items of land previously mortgaged. 
The consideration 
for the sale was Rs. 3050 which was made up of Rs. 1600. Rs. 1000 and 
Rs. 131 due under three previous mortgages respectively and Rs. 200 received 
in cash on the date of sale. 
The minor sons on becoming major filed a suii out of which this appeal 
arises. for a declaration that the sale deed e.xecuted was not for legal neces-
sity, nor for the benefit of the estate and, 
therefore, not binding on them. 
They also prayed for joint possession of their 2/3rd share. 
The trial conrt 
found that there was legal necessity for the sale to the extent of Rs. 2600 
only, the consideration of Rs. 3050 for the sale was inadequate as the lands 
were worth about Rs. 
400 and that there was no compelling 
pressure on 
the estate to justify the sa.le and therefor'e the sale was not for the benefit of 
the family and hence not binding on the plaintiffs. 
A decree was granted in 
their favour for joint possession of 2 /3rd share of the lands subject to certain 
payment to the second defendant. On appeal by the second defendant, the 
Assistant Judge held the suit of the first plaintiff to be barred by time and 
therefore modified the decree in favour of the second plaintiff. 
On appeal 
by the first plaintiff and second defendant, the High Court allowed the appent 
by the 
first plaintiff and dismissed the appeal filed by the second defen-
dant. -
Accepting the appeal of the legal representatives of the second defendant, 
HELD : Out of the sale consideralion of Rs. 3050 there was undoubted' 
legal necessity to the extent of Rs. 2600 the total amount due under the tv»o 
deeds of mortgage executed by the father of the plaintiffs. 
Out of the ten 
items which were mortgaged, only four were sold and the remaining six items 
were released from the burden of the mortgages. The f.amily was also relievecf 
from one burden of paying rent to the mortgagee· under the lease. 
All this. 
·• 
• 
ARVIND v. ANNA (Chinnappa Reddy, !.) 
817 
was for the benefit of the family, 
The value of the land svld under the deed 
of sale was found by the Courts below to be Rs. 4000. 
Even if that be so 
it cannot possibly be said that the price of Rs. 3000 was grossly inadequate. 
Further there were continuous dealings between the family of the plaint~1s and 
the fan1ily of the second defendant over a long course of years. 
In thi!SO 
circumstances it is impossible to say that the sale was not binding on the 
plaintiffs. 
The Courts below appeared to think that notwithstanding the cir-
cumstanc'e that there was legal necessity to a large extent it was incumbent on 
the second defendant to establish that he made enquiry to satisfy himself that 
there was sufficient pressure on the estate which justified the sale. When the 
mortgagee was himself the· purchaser and when the greater portion of the 
consideration went in discharge of the 
mor~gages no question of enquiry re-
garding pressure on the estate would arise at all. Where ancestral property 
is sold for the purpose of discharging debts incurred by the father and th& 
bulk of the proceeds of the sale is so accounted, the fact that a small part 
of the consideration it not accounted for will not invalidate the sale. [819 A-E] 
Gauri Shankar & 
Ors. v. Jiwan 
Singh 
& Ors. A.I.R. 1927 P.C. 246 
/Viamat Rai & Ors. v. Din Dayal & Ors. 1927 A·.I.R. P.C. 121, Ram Sunder 
Lnl & another v. Lachhmi Narain and anothet' A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 143; HanoonJan

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.