DWARAMPUDI NAGARATNAMBA versus KUNUKU RAMAYYA & ANR.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 43 · Decided: 19-07-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
43 
DWARAMPUDINAGARATNAMBA 
v. 
KUNUKU RAMAYYA & ANR. 
July 19, 1967 
[R. S. BACHAWAT, J. M. SHELAT AND V. 8HARGAVA, JJ.) 
Hindu Law-Transfer to concubine-For services-whether con-
sideration-Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), s. ~(d)-Transfer 
of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), s. 6(h). 
V the karta of a joint Hlindu family, transferred in 1946 certain 
properties, of the joint family to the appellant, who was his concu-
1 c bines since 1945. The joint family disrupted in 1947, and after V's 
death, the respondents-his widow and sons, filed ~ suit ag.ainst the 
appellant for recovery of possession of the properties alleging that 
the documents were executed without consideration or for immoral 
purposes. and were void. The appellant instituted suits for partition 
of the joint family properties and for allotment to her the proper-
ties conveyed by the deeds. The trial court dismissed the respondents' 
suit and .decreed the 11ppellant's suit, which the High Court revers-
D ed. In appeal to .this Court, the appellant contended that V, agreed 
to make the transfers in consideration of past cohabitation, having 
regard to s. 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, her past service 
was a valuable. consideration and V was competent to alienate for 
value his undivided interest in the coparcenary properties. The res-
pondents contended that the transfers were by way of gifts and not 
in consideration of the past cohabitation, and V \\'as not competent 
to make a gift ·of the coparcenary prope1·ties and even assuming 
E that the transfers were ·made in consideration of past cohabitation, 
they were hit by s. 6 (h) of the Transfer of Property Ac~, 1882. 
HELD: Under the Madras School of Mitakshara law by which 
V was governed, he had no power to make a gift of even his undivi-
ded interest in the coparcenary properties to his concubine. [ 46C] 
V and the appellant were parties to an illicit intercourse. The 
two agreed to cohabit, PUl'Suant to the agreement each rendered ser-
F vices to the other. Her services were given in exchange for his pro-
mise 
under 
which she obtained 
simiLar services. In 
view 
of 
her 
services, 
he 
promised to 
give his services only 
and not his properties. Having once operated as the consideration 
for his earlier promise. her past. services could not be treated under 
s. 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act as a subsisting consideration for 
the pro~rties .to her, The past cohabita_tiion was the motive and not 
G the consideration for the transfers which were without considera-
tion and were by way of gifts. The gifts were not hit by s 6(h) ot 
the Transfer of Property Act, by reason of the fact that tbey were 
motivated by a desire to compensate the concubine for her past 
services. [45E--0] 
. . The i!'va~id gifts were n~t "!alida~ed by the disruption of the 
JOmt family m 1947; After the disruption of the joint family V was 
R free to make a gift of his divided interest in the coparcenary 'proper-
ties to the appellant, but he did not make any such gift. ~ 460) 
Balo v. Parbati .. I.L.R. [1940] All. 370 and Tstak Kamu Musal-
:~n v. Ranchhod Z1pru Bhate, I.L.R. fl947] Bom. 206, 217 referred 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(l9G8) l R.C.ll. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 83-85 A 
of 1965. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
February 9, 1962 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Tr. 
Appeal No. 558 of 1957 and A. S. Nos. 89 and 157 of 1957 res· 
pectively. 
P. Ram Reddy, A. V. V. Nair, B. Parthasarathy, and 0. C. 
Mathur, for the appellant (in all the appeals). 
C. R. Pattabhiraman and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the respon-
dents (in C.As. Nos. 83 and 84 of 1965) and respondents Nos. 1-
5 (in C.A. No. 85 of 1965). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
llacllawat, J.-One Venkatacharyulu was the Karla of a 
joint family consisting of himself and his four sons. The appellaill 
was his concubine since 1945 until his death on February 22. 1949. 
By two registered deeds purporting to be sale deeds dated April 15, 
1946, (Exbts. A-1 and A·2), he transferred to the appellant certain D 
properties belonging to the joint family. In 1947 after the execu· 
tion of Ex. A-1 and A·2 there was a disruption of the joint family 
and a severance of the joint status between Venkatacharyulu and 
his sons. In 1954 his widow and sons instituted O.S, No. 12 of 
1954 against the appellant for recovery of possession of the pro-
perties alleging that the documents dated 

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