SADASIVAM versus K. DORAISAMY

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 336 · Decided: 09-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SADASIVAM 
v. 
K. DQRAISAMY 
FEBRUARY 9, 1996 
[G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARTA, JI.] 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Section 54-Sale deed-validity 
of-Alienation inf avour of near relation with understanding that the document 
not to be acted upon-Sale deed executed without consideration-Invalid. 
Limitation Act, 1963-Aits. 64, 65-Adverse possession-Joint Fa11iily 
propenies-Exclusive possession of co-sharer-Wliether amounts to adverse 
possession-Held, No, unless such possession is exercised by ousting the other 
co-sharer. 
D 
M, the father of the appellant filed a suit for a declaration that the 
E 
F 
G 
sale deed executed by him in favour of the respondent was a sham docu-
ment and had not been acted upon, another suit was filed for a permanent 
injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the peaceful 
enjoyment of the suit properties. The respondent also filed a suit for a 
declaration of half share in the joint properties by the grand father of the 
appellant since bequeathed to him by a will. The trial Court dismissed the 
suit filed by plaintiff M but decreed the suit by the respondent on the 
finding that the sale deed executed by Min favour of respondent conveying 
his share in the joint family properties was not a sham document but a 
valid document and the will executed by father of M bequeathing his half 
share in the ,joint family properties in favour of the respondent was also 
a genuine will thereby conveying his interest in favour of the respondent. 
During appeal filed against this judgment, M died and appellant was 
brought on record as his legal representative. The High Court upheld the 
finding of the trial Court. Hence these appeals. 
The appellant submitted that. the will should not have been held valid 
and genuine sfnce the validity of a will operates as a judgment in rem; that 
the Court has a duty to ensure that such will had in fact been executed by 
the testator out of his free volition and if there are circumstances which 
raise suspicion about the genuineness of the will, it is the duty of the 
H legatee or the executor of the will to satisfy the Court that the will had been 
336 
'( 
.... . 
.. 
--
SADASIV AM v. K. DORAISAMY 
337 
genuinely executed by repelling the suspicious circumstances; that in this A 
case the will seeing light of the day only in 1985 though it was executed in 
1979, the will beins unregistered, there being no witness of the locality and 
divesting of close relations, were suspicious circumstances; that no 
genuine sale deed had been executed by M by receiving consideration for 
the valuable properties; that even if the will was held to be genuine and if 
the sale deed executed by M was held to be a genuine sale deed and not a 
sham document, by such sale deed the interest of the appellant could not 
be affected, there being no case of transfer of the joint family property by 
the Karta for legal necessity, the inter.est of the appellant who was a 
coparcener in the property could not be affected. 
The respondent submitted that the will executed by the father of M 
B 
c 
and the deed of sale e~cuted by M in favour of the respondent had been 
held to be genuine and valid documents after considering the evidences 
adduced in the case and such findings based on cogent reasons and on 
correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the D 
evidences on record should not be interfered with by this Court; that the 
respondent a very close relation of M, was brought up in the ancestral 
house of M and his father, the sale deed executed by M in favour of the 
creditors had been removed by M from the custody of the respondent and 
hence no adverse inference against the respondent for the custody of such 
document with M should be drawn; that the plaintiff did not lead any E 
convincing evidence to show that the sale deed. was executed under any 
undue influence exerted by the defendant and that despite execution of the 
sale deed, it was M who had owned and possessed the land sold by him, 
therefore, it was rightly held that the sale deed was a valid document and 
not a sham transaction. 
Allowing the appeals in part, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1.1. The sale deed was purported to have been executed by 
M, the father of appellant, for liquidating his antecedent debts on account 
of two pronotes executed by him in favour of two creditors. M was not a G 
man withod means and he owned and possessed valuable properties. No 
evidence was led 

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