Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Harbans Kaur vs Manna Singh S/O Lal Singh on 9 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)117PLR350
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J.
1. This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1978. The trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 26,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff-respondent. Brief facts of the case are that respondent (hereinafter to be referred as the plaintiff) filed a suit against the appellant (hereinafter to be referred as the defendant) for recovery of Rs. 26,000/- on the basis of three hundies of Rs. 10,000/- , Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 6000/- respectively. It is stated in the hundies that the agreed amount shall be paid within 30 days. Over and above these hundies, an agreement was also arrived at between the parties on the same date i.e. 25.3.1974 whereby the defendant promised to give Rs. 26,000/- to the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff was contested on number of grounds. It was, inter-alia, pleaded by the defendant that she did not execute any Hundi in favour of the plaintiff and that no amount was given by the plaintiff to her. It was also pleaded that the hundies were without consideration. It was further pleaded that defendant Manna Singh was the brother of one Inder Singh who was her late husband. Inder Singh died issueless leaving behind only the defendant as his widow. Inder Singh left behind certain landed property situated in village Gill Varaich and cash worth Rs. 100,000/- in the bank. It was the defendant who was entitled to get the property according to Hindu Succession Act, but the plaintiff to deprive the defendant from the said property dragged her into litigation on the plea that she was not widow of Inder Singh. The plaintiff also contested the petition filed by the defendant for obtaining a succession certificate. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was in a position to dominate his position and induced the defendant to thumb mark some blank papers on the pretext that the mutation of the land would be sanctioned in her favour. It was further pleaded by the defendant that she is a perda nasin lady and illiterate, she, however, believed the defendant to get the property of her husband. The plaintiff fabricated the hundies and agreement. The plea of undue influence was also taken. It was further pleaded by the defendant that the hundies and agreement were without consideration as the object of such documents was illegal and forbidden by law, and therefore, suit deserves to be dismissed.
2. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court on 27.7.1977:-
1. Whether defendant executed Hundies in dispute in favour of the plaintiff? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether Hundies in dispute were without consideration? OPD
3. Whether there was a agreement dated 25.3.74 between the plaintiff, if so its effect? OPD
4. Whether Hundies in dispute and agreement are illegal, void and result of influence and fraud as alleged in the written statement? OPD
5. Whether the suit is pre-matured, if so its effect? OPD
6. Relief.
3. The trial Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and issue No. 2 against the defendant. Findings on issues No. 3, 4 and 5 were returned against the defendants. Resultantly, as mentioned above, the suit for recovery of Rs. 26,000/-was decreed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.11.1978.
4. Mr. A.C. Jain, learned counsel for the defendant vehemently contends that no consideration at all passed to the plaintiff in lieu of Hundies Exhibits P1, P3 and agreement Exhibit-P4 and even though, therefore, the execution of the Hundies Exhibits P1 to P3 and agreement Exhibit-P4 be held proved, yet the suit for recovery could not possibly be decreed. Alternative contentions of the counsel is that the Hundies and agreement Exhibits P-1 to P-3 and P4 respectively are not binding on defendant in view of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and, therefore, also the suit for recovery could not be decreed.
5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. I.S. Bajwa, however, has joined issues with Mr. A.C. Jain, on the contentions raised by him.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
7. This Court is of the view that there is considerable merit in the contentions raised by Mr. A.C. Jain, learned counsel for the defendant and, therefore, the appeal must succeed. It has been proved by leading overwhelming evidence on the record of the case that Lal Singh had two sons, namely, Inder Singh and Manna Singh. Manna Singh son of Lal Singh is the plaintiff who has filed the suit for recovery. His real brother Inder Singh died on 30.6.1971. On the demise of Inder Singh,Manna Singh got mutation sanctioned of the land left by Inder Singh in his favour and said fact is evidenced from Exhibit-D1. It is clear from the reading of Exhibit-D1, passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Tarn Taran that Manna Singh had denied relationship of the defendant with Inder Singh. Reading of the order further shows that on account of the fact that the defendant could not lead proper evidence the mutation of inheritance of Inder Singh was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff Manna Singh. However, on an appeal preferred by the defendant-Harbans Kaur, the appellate Court accepted the contentions of the defendant not only on admission of relationship by the plaintiff, but also on the basis of documentary evidence that was produced to prove that defendant was in fact and reality widow of Inder Singh. This order was passed by the appellate Court on 3.4.1974. It is on this very date that Exhibits P1 to P4 came into existence. Succession certificate was also granted in favour of the defendant on 7.5.1974. All these documents have been produced on the record of the case. Not only, reading of agreement Exhibit-P4, but for the documents referred to above, left an impression upon this Court that the same were passed on account of a compromise arrived at between the parties. The only question needs to be determined is as to whether the plaintiff himself in Exhibit-P4 admitted the defendant to be the wife of Inder Singh, the agreement arrived at between the parties lawfully or opposed to the provisions contained in Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, reads as under:-
"23. What consideration and objects are lawful and what not.- The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless- it is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another, or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void."
8. It is not disputed and well made out from the section reproduced above that individual case referred to above, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful and every such agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void
9. If defendant-Harbans Kaur is ultimately admitted to be a widow of Inder Singh by none other than the plaintiff himself, it is she who was exclusively entitled to inherit the estate of Inder Singh, may be the agricultural land or the money left by him in the bank. By coming to the agreement Exhibit-P4 into existence, certain provisions contained in Hindu Succession Act are certainly defeated. The agreement, therefore; not be fraudulent one, but the same is certainly hit by the vice of being of such a nature that it would defeat the provisions of any law. Not only that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is also of the view that agreement in question was also opposed to the public policy. A widow could not possibly be deprived of her right of succession in the manner as was done with her vide agreement Exhibit-P4. It is not disputed that no consideration pissed to the defendant in lieu of Hundies Exhibits P1 to P3. The scribe of these Hundies admits that no consideration had passed to the defendant.
10. Even though, the execution of Hundies Exhibits P1 to P3 and agreement Exhibit-P4 stand proved, the plaintiff cannot take advantage of the same as consideration or object of the agreement would be unlawful and every such agreement as per Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, is to be held to be void. Holding, therefore, agreement Exhibit P4 to be void as also no consideration passed to the defendant in lieu of the execution of Hundies Exhibits-P1 to P-3, I dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff and accept the present appeal. Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are, therefore, set aside. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.