RANI & ANR. versus SANTA BALA DEBNATH & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 603 · Decided: 14-10-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
B 
603 
RANI & ANR. 
v. 
SANTA BALA DEBNAIB & ORS. 
October 14, 1970 
[J. C. SHAH AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Hindu Law-Legal necessity-Proof of-Recitals in deed, ev/dentiary 
talue of. 
S. a Hindu female ¥overned by Dayabhaga system of law, executed 
a sale·deed. It WH recited in the agreement that she agreed to sell "on 
ac,count of financial need and to pay off certain debts". After her death 
her son1 flied .a suit for a declaration that the sale-deed was not blndln1 
. on them as It was executed without legal necessity .. ·The Trial Court 
held that the sale deed was supported by legal necessity. The Court a!SG 
observed, that the .contention that, there was fraud, misrepresentation and 
undue influence was ·not seriously pressed as there was no evidence 
adduced to prove the same. 
The High Court, in appeal, reversed the 
decree holding that the defendants' case of 'legal necessity was not proved 
and on that account the sale deed was not binding upon the plaintiffs., 
The High Court, without adverting to the record, observed that the case 
of the plaintiffs that S was induced to exeoute the sale deed because of 
persuation and undue intluence had to be accepted. 
In appeal by cer· 
tificate, this Court, 
HELD : (i) The Appell&nts-defendants had amply ,made out that the 
sale deed was supported by ·1egal necessity. The observations of the High 
Court were not supported by any evidence and they seriously -vitiated the 
appreciation of the evidence oh record. 
· 
(ii) Legal necessity does not mean actual compulsion : it means pres· 
sure upon the estate whi.ch in law may be regarded as serious and .sufli·. 
cient. 
The cn•1s of proving legal necessity may be discharged by the 
alienee by proof of actual necessity . or by proof that he made proper 
and bonfide enquiries about the existence of the necessity and that he 
did all that was reasonable to satisfy himself as to the existenee' of the 
necessity. [608 DJ 
Recitals in a deed, of legal necessity, do not by themselves prove legal 
necessity, 
The recitals are. however, admissible in evidence, their value 
varying according to the circumstances in which the transaction was' 
entered into. 
Where the evidence which could be brought before the 
Court and is within the special knowledge of the person who seek.s to set 
aside the sale is withheld, such evidence being normally not available to 
the alienee, the recitals go to his aid with greater force, and the Court 
may be justified in appropriate cases in raising. an inference against the 
party seeking to set aside the sale on the ground of absence of legal 
necessilv wholly or partially when he withholds evidence in his posses· 
sion. 
Jn the present case the recitals in the deed about the existence of 
pressure upon the estate are amply corroborated by the circumstances. 
[608 F] 
(iii) Since the plaintiffs only claimed relief against defendants. 1 & 2 
for declaration that the alienation in their favour was not binding on the 
plaintiffs and that relief cannot be granted to the plaintiffs, the circum· 
SUP.REME COD.RT REPORTS 
[1971] 2 S.C.R. 
·'ance that the heirs of the I 0th detendant are not Im pleaded in their 
ppeal does not affect the right of the defendants to claim tbe appeal 
A 
must bo dismissed. [610 Cl 
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 
1966. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 7, 1962 
B 
of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 
173 of. 1956. 
S. V. Gupte and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellants. 
Purushottam Chatterjee, P. K. Chatterjee and Rathin Das, for 
respo.ndent N13. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. 
One 
Sashi Bhusan was possessed of a piece of 
land at Mou~a Behala District 24-Parganas 
admeasuring .98 
acres. 
The land devolved on the death of Sashi Bhusan in 1920 
upon his daughter Sarala. Under the Dayalihaga system of law; 
Sarala inherited the propP.rty of her father as a limited owner. 
Sarala married Kunja Behari. 
The latter died in 1937 reaving 
him surviving Sarala, two sons 
Tulsi and Gobinda, 
and four 
daughters were married during the life-time of · Kunja Behai·i. 
Kunja Behari left no estate except a residential house constructed 
on the land at M auza Behal a. Kunja Behari was ailing for about 
one year before his death in 1937. He was in an humble walk 
of life, and was apparently not profitably employed during his 
life-time. 
At the time of his 
death the two sons 
Tulsi an

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