BRAHMVART SANATHAN DHARAM MAHAMANDAL KANPUR & ORS. versus PREM KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 718 · Decided: 10-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
718 
BRAHMVART SANATHAN DHARAM MAHAMANDAL 
KANPUR & ORS. 
' 
v. 
PREM KUMAR & ORS. 
May 10, 1985 
(0. CH1NNAPPA REDDY AND R.B. MlSRA, JJ.J 
Hindu Law-Right of the lilnited owners to alienate the joint estate of a 
proposilus during their life time after division of the property in equal shares and 
coming into possession thereof, without tire consent of the other co-owners-
Consequences of the alienations made-Whether passes title to the successive 
alienees entitling them to protection under section 43 and 51 of the Transfer of 
Property Act-Doctrine of "feeding the grant by estoppel''. and "Deemed 
consent"-Supreme Court will not, in an appeal interfere wi h thr discretionar)' 
power of the lligli Court to evaluate the evidance. 
One Lala Gurdin, who had acquired extensive landed property in 
Kanpur died on December IO, 1861 leaving behind his widow Smt. Amrit Kuer 
and three daughters: Smt. Hazarao Kuer fron1 his predeceased wife, and Smt. 
Mewa Kuer and Smt. Prago Kuer from Smt. Amrit Kuer. After the death of 
Gordin his entire estate came into the hands of his widow Smt. Amrit Kuer 
and after her death on August I, 1880, the 
three daughters of Lala Gurdin 
succeeded to the estate left by S1nt. Amrit Kuer, as limited owners. 
They 
divided the property amongst themselves, each coming into possession of 
one-third share. When Smt. Pra&o Kuer died on July 8, 1907 the estate 
remained with the two surviving daughters. \\'hen Smt. Hazaro Kuer died on 
January 24, 1914 the estate remained in possession of Smt. Mewa Kuer, the last 
surviving daughter. She also died on June 14, 1923. 
During their life time thr three daughters had been making various 
alienations of the property that fell to their exclusive share. Amongst a 
number of alienations in favour of different persons at different times, three 
&ale deeds dated July 27, 1901; July 17, 1914 and October 19, 1915 are the 
subject matter of the appeals and the property covered by the 1901 and 1914 
sale deeds arc in possession of the appellants trust while the properties covered 
by the 1915 sale deeds are in the possession of Defendants 4 & 5 of Suit No. 25 
of 1935. The 1914 and 1915 sale deeds were jointly executed by Sm!. Mewa 
Kuer and her son Ram Dayal. 
After the death of Smt. Mewa Kuer in 1923, her surv1v1ng reversioners 
sought to challenge the various alienations made by the limited owners, some 
by Smt. Amrit Kuer and the others made by the daughters of Lala Gurdin by 
way of two Suits Nos. 25 of 1935 filed by the two sons of Smt. Hazaro Kuer 
and Suit No. 34 of 1935 filed by Madho Dayal son of Ram Dayal, on the 
-
D.S.D. MAHAMANDAL v. PreM KUMAR 
719 
allegations (i) that there was no legal or pressing necessity for the transfers; (ii) 
A 
that transrer by one of the daughters without the consent of the remaining 
daughters was void ab inltio and no title passed on to the transferees~ and 
(iii) 
transferees from the limited owners themselves had no valid title and so they 
could not pass a better title to others and thus those transfer• were also 
bad. 
The suits were contested by the transferees in possession seeking protec.. 
B 
lion of section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act on the equitable principle 
feeding the Grant by estoppel in as much as even if there was any defect in the 
of title Mewa Kuer, the same has ceased when her two other sisters died and 
she become the ~ale Survivor. 
The Additional Civil Judge found that, while sale deeds or 1914 and 
1915 were for legal necessity as they had been executed l-y Smt. Mewa Kucr 
when her two sisters had died, the sale deed dated 27th July, 1901 was also for 
legal necessity but as it was executed without the consent of the other two 
daughters it was invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs-respondent. Con-
sequently the Trial Court dismissed Suit No. 25 of 1935 in respect of the sale 
deeds of 1914 and 1915, and partly decreed the suit pertaining to 1901 sale 
deed in view of the provisions of section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act in as 
much as these defendants-appellants had made valuable constructions as bona 
fide purchasers and they were entitled to the market value of the constructions. 
Suit No 34 of 1935 was also partly decreed and partly dismissed. In the 
appeals filed by the present respondents-plaintiffs and after perusing the cross 
objections filed by 
the present defendants-appellants, the High 
Court 
reversed the finding of the trial court with re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.