M C Satyavati Bai W/O G R Govind Singh vs M C Suryanarayana Singh S/O Pandit ... on 9 June, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M C Satyavati Bai W/O G R Govind Singh vs M C Suryanarayana Singh S/O Pandit ... on 9 June, 2010

Bench: V.Jagannathan

3 (bl

3 (£1)

3 (El __

%~kmt,%Re'm.ka;( 

 

D] 0 Shardo1Sitgh, Aged about 51 ._.  "  ._ A' 
W/0 L513 Nﬁmyana sinsh,  _   '
D.No.116I2, 3"' Main Road, 33" .CV1'_d-as,'  _   
Chamrajpetn,  O.18.V "  '  

S/o Shardnl Si11gh.,_Aged*e;bc*ut  

R/o Dodda   
Yelwal Poat,  
Mysore [)i3tf'Et'570'~{xjQ. "

Smt.Rad11ilcﬁ; '  L       '.

D] o S1mrdoIASjﬁgh,vAged'"ab6uit----v45 years,
W D  

  '

D] :31 Aged about 42 years,

 W/oT;R;smgh' T;13.%No.3+.

"  Cross, 691 Main Road,

K:-S.R«T.C. Layuut, J.P.Nagara,

' *  H 

 ._n&.c.r:5mm_e.1a Bai,
 '  Wfp"  Aged about 69 years,
 . "R; at*D'.~!Io~..17°22. I Croaa, Rajput Block,
7N;'R.Mo'I3a_Ih'a, Mysorc.

C .Saiii"c1'1a,

  " Dr.C.Naraamgh'

  ~ Eli'/o Govardlaarmaingh,
 '_  about 64 years, R] at No.1632,
  Road, N.R.Mohn]1a, Mysore.

Bhan Singh,

S! 0 Chandra Bhan Singh,

Aged about 75 years, Rfat 110.558,
Chahrvamba Agrahara,
K.R.Moha]]a. Mysore.



Judge,:.M}r_ao1*;i.  _ = 

 

7. Nsunitha Bai,
W] o Haraeingh Bhan, 1-! at H0558,
Chahrvnmba Ag:-ahara,
K.R.MohaI1a, Mysore.

( By Sri T.R'.Ragh11pathy, Adm¢ate€£:rTV L1?'3_'di;.RsVV1':;:., f --: _

Sri L.M.Ramaiah <3awda, Advncaneafor 1254; ans. j
Sri G.Ba.lakr'nhna Shaatr_v,. _f;.:1yoce§te,for. R-56  "

Regular %nd  100 of
the C.P.C. agajmt them  datcd
29.7.2003 pase1eti"'§1::i'R.1§é«_.N;j.".":;¥/ié%7§'taz1~ﬁ1e ﬁle oftlm III

Addl. Dist. .35-.dg¢, k% the appeal and

passed  the ﬁle of the Prl. Civil

 m 3 v|'$i¢V':ﬁ g; cg 43L 1

M.C.S:%ityaas£vafi"Bai,

  % Wro Gaewjna Singh.
"  _  about 65 years, that No.7,
 Road, Saraswatipura,

 _ '~Mya'r;:r¢-570 009.

. . Appellant

 "   By Sri Tarakaram, Same' r Advocate for Sri S.K.Sa_1lea' h

for M] a Taralcmaxn Associates, Advncatca. )



 

AND:

1.

Dr.C.Naz-asingh Bhan Singh,

S/an Chanira Bhan Singh,

Aged about 72 years, R1 at 110.558,
Chaluvamha Agrahara,

I{.R.Mohal1a, Mysm.-570 005.
DrA.Sunit.ha Bai. [
Wfo Naraaingh Bhan Singh.   T 
Rf at 110.558, Chaluvaxnha 
K.R.MohaJ]a, Myaom-6. V   - "  '

Sfo Pundit Chaxﬁraban f:TirJgh',"  

Aged about 68 years; '1-_,'a1':    -.
Chaluvamba     "  
K.R.MohaJ]a,:IVIyso:7¢-6."  _ 

M.Ci:.Slm_ :rd  . ;
sincdadead' by LfE_~?'3'.'   

Smt.AIusguy'a 
 ?..W[o"Shérdo1  Aged about 66 years,
"  _Dt)dda  Yclwal Hobli,
'  Post, Mysore Dist:-i:t~57O O09.

4 V')

   .

_ _ Shardol Sirgh, Aged about 51 yearn, = D'.No.116l2, 3rd Main Road, sth Crows, " Channajpete, Bangnlox-e--18. S.Manoj Singh, S] 0 Shardol Singh, Aged about 47 years, R] o Doddn ' Yelwal Phat, Phat, Mysore District-9.

Sn1t.Radl:Iikn, D] 0 Shardol Singh, Aged about 45 years, R] o Dodda Maragowdanahalli, 4 [d3 Sri M.C.Suryamu'ayana Singh, Since dead by LR'3.

I (a) Saraawathi Bai, age 62 1 (b) Nandirli Bai, age 3-6 "

1(c) S.Mamatha Bai, x A A 1 my S.Ma.njunath__.

1 (e) S.BaLagi ggesta k All D°F1d£iLmB1'ﬁ3°W. x V k V', «

a) % by tjL.H%arem% _ are 1-/0 No.4632, «Shiva;ji"Road, N.R.MohaEa, ,My§0re-570 O07.

M.c:.S'hm»do1 Singh, u Aged 53 ycaars, '.3! '6; Late P.H.Ch.andrabh.an Singh, ma ma , % 5Univemity Post, My3ore--570 005. S1nt.M.C.Hi1'ma1a Bai, Major, W/o Gcwind singh, Rf at 13.30.4722, I Cross, Rajput Ekick, N.R.Moha]}a, Mysore-570 007. Smt.C..Sabita, Agcd 53 years, Wfo Govardhan Singh, Rjat No.69, I Main, N.S.Pa1ya, _ _ T 1 9 (By sxiT.N.Raghupathv»-'¥d'*°€=?*bé.11> 11 AND:

1.

Major, S/o Pandit P,H.«.Ch}an1;h' é V * singh, R} at R0558, Dr.A.sunxtha' ' Agedﬁﬁy" %ra;11R:i1atHa.5~581;1:11 smt.:M.C,Sa3r1m_;:u111i« . j years',-'§ia'~.£0 Sf: Singh, Rf a 'Sai'aaw"&t,hipura.

" 1. ...Respondents 'Shautry, Advocate for R-1 & 2. 1 1 Appeal filed under Section 1011 of « ﬁhg ':.a1gainst the judgment and decree dated % passed in R.A.No. 511979 on the ﬁle ofthe 111 District Judge, Mysore, anowmg the appeal and aside thc mam: and dccncac dam 17.1.1979 passed in O.S.No. H3] 1974 on the ﬁle of the Prl. Civil Judge. Myaore.

'E $15 oonimgon for day, oourtdeiiveredthc following: ' U MET A Wm havim a 'ummm oi 'relmse' a reqmm at' law that the release is aver quwtinn of law in for an amwer by this cnurt. _ stated are the following:

Curie ﬁingh was a we}! lmown prwﬁcing at Mysore. He was Satyanarayana Vaixiya Shaia in house M553 T E-Fm wiﬁa was om Desvubai. Plaintiﬁ u 8%, defafsdanta 1(a) ix) 1(3) and % defendant No.2 were the chﬂdrm cf the said cauple. The plaimiﬁand their arm Chandrablmn sizgh (5;-m; defmdant] ma parﬁiiazmd mg properties, 8.11.1954. The suit schedule meminnad in the scheausa :1: gm; k% itams, out of which first one defmzdanfa fathsex-__ statement imelf that a pa-opemzes of Devubai and on 1 i.e., Chandrahhan Singh, mhezgar a brig cmzished dasire "up Hoapital oompiex and a Aftm-A has wﬁh, ﬁrat clafmxlant was in H VV }§; )a'&sinn and anjaywt of suit schedule V A A ' the Icatha also steed 'm the name: of the 'I'he.re was also an atmpt by tha City Trust Board (CITE), to acquire thc suit:

E?

wpenm of the Last d.eught:er* of Chebhan Singh, i.e., d&ndant 1(e) am also for the purpose of performg the first defmdanfs 'Shanthi Umavaa'. A release dﬁ cam in be mecuted on 5.4.72 puma' and defendanm 1(a) to me; m _ Chnndrabimn Singh, fathm, as per ef ' auit schedule prepay. A maecxxhed in femur of em:

the purpose of raising Iio.1(e]. The shame between

3. emu, me at' the norm of along with the daughbere "¢:~af_ '3ii"--;g.--'«"1', originally am the suit for mxme am dated 5.4.1972(Ex.P1) is sham and dam not bind the plaintiﬂ' Ear 5 and wchmive possession of $ 4' in the suit schedule property and Rent 13:) the death of ﬁrst dderzdant smh. pxamzm 2 to 6 got thmnaelvw umpmﬁm mm1E. "I'hue,on1ytm ariwxal ﬁrat p}a2';:1'&ﬁ'Su1yar:arayan Sm}: was left in the Ray. In the suit, tm p1ai115ﬁ5 mzztmded that the release deed was obtained by defendant No.1, on that:

enabling the ﬁat deﬁendant to get the suit from the aequismon pmceedinga and a1so'_t@.'v:A4f$¢i§itja§:¢ T tbs Ssrst d%1zt to get Go%n1: fer the purpoae crf "3g"*«'.11Ve: V. the memzjr cf the am of the plaintiﬁ i.a., tm plaint. that mam-k by the defendanta 1 pls.int§ﬁ' and km, pla1n' tﬁ m and asks that ﬁzst m mm of rgh: or innit property is not azatitleci ﬁx jaw tn get aAfr.=:Eeesxs_ 1 favour. It was aha ave.-rred in the k % démdant was aged 94 years and was ..§;he§""i..rzﬂuamc¢ of mm defendant and wife of conxmim that second defendant wife ham to sham? lwatilc attitude taowarda %/ 12 phinw' and defendants 1(a) to lte), suit was thus filed East the refiefmezatinxﬁ above.

4. The ﬁmt daﬁendnnt i.e., father of piainﬁ' rmum to the parﬁﬁon that took plaea x and hi? sum on 8.11.1954 'Isaak up the Btg n':::d.

whamm propm't1"u that were n.§:)f parta'ti:::n dﬁ below in the death of his war; Devubai, sczgeczsm was also in mcclusive iif Erat defmdant and has 91' these aha we was executed by the P13". 33$'. out of their' mm. free %%%wm'a.;:{a i_€~,*:E)1'§3§;I1t have relinquiahed rm:

ii, the suit property in favour af ﬁx-at this eﬁect they also and the aﬁdavit % ﬁec::'%r1mt the as: tiaiandant is a sale mm arms r property and that phmtiﬁs and swam have no right whamoevm om' ﬁn suit property. It was aha statad in the written V. staheﬁxt. 1:3: him that pli and second dﬁsndant 3Q//Q 1-eﬁnqukhed their right by takim oonaideratinn and phmw mm second defendant. He. aka "

stand that while suit pmvpm-Sign pmpertwa' of his wﬁe am Hindu did not apply, pJm'n:m 2 and 3 mg law, k% slrmre in the suit property.

5. Dermdam Na. 1(a) médj by stating so in _ second defzmdant that the mm and daughte11;n"':3f the release deed in ﬁavoufof second am third haw also eamcuiaed a awammm at C . Tm izzﬂumwca being 'brought by the first plainwh and dafcmdanta 1A to IE

- but on the otlwr hand, it was canbended _ mlmae dead 1'33 quesﬁan is a g¢t1um'e V . nxand is WM' and b1nd1m' ' on the p1am' tiﬁ " swand defendant. The: amend defexzdanfa S V' stammmt was to 1% ﬁx: that the 9/ plainmﬂa aware afwill wecuted by the dﬁeaadant ciamd 8.11.1974 and reﬁmataed the stand takaen in the wrwm statement aarliser &ed,see& dismissal of suit ofthe The third Mmm wha is at second defemant mo fallsewed the atami. T the second d am! naught suit and stated that def¢::1danta.___1(éj"._1;_§r % ax-zp:m1 pwumm 2 m 5 and as clefendam 1(3) tn 1(«::.) at mum on fee on their In at: £9: as kntwm A'Lf ' , it was atntai in the wnthe' n%mmmm.»'% this desem.-., um V bequmthsad scam: ether a§t2m1am%*% % rm saw will and p1ain1:'Lﬁ' ibfthis rm and abtained mpy of he will % « 1%f19?4 meg.

cfthe wrtrﬁ bd ﬁlm trial court in T as many as at ﬁsuea and seam. addiﬁanal isaucs the am cam rejected. the p1am' um c::x1u;e.z1tior1 ﬁ/ .u .

that releaac deed wan obtaimd by the defmxdants undar miampmsmmaﬁon, undue inﬂuence, com-a®11 or Isaua No.2 azsomwrning the: validity ef tbs "

was howw azmwenecl in ﬁvaur of plaiﬁ' 1 _ an hens No.3 was amweiw by i_ 'I: in joint yasaeasion af '$3.51 V. czermaanes and ham: no.6 am plai.nt;iﬁ' is ms:m %%%%m suit mpemm . Additianal by am far as cam-ma. but hcawewr, __wiIi the ﬁx-at dewdant and its in favzzausr of the thaa piai was (ii by balding ta uvm sham in the suit 1 as far as am claim of defmzdanta may no the ma! atmrt faum that as they hael 15

8.Awievedbyt11aj11dmnt¢fthctrialccu:t, d:e£en% 1 and 2 preferred R.A.ﬂ:'.:.5/79, and dermdam 1(4) also am an appeal in R.A.N<:.9]7'9, by queatimzixg the finding of the trial court that she emmed fer maaraa she had mam ta pay faeinraspectafixmslmre. Qfme lower appellate court gnawed Weﬁlxﬁ by m~1 Q judmcm cf the trial court of was by aermamgmiiagggs an the mum: at its ﬁndmg' , Em A '- concurred with the trial cemrt; Ia-aim mo exridesnaee placed a1@&ns of fraud, utﬂue on tbs part of the first L %%j%~%%%aerenag:x: the release dazed Em-1. On the

-- -. the learnad judge of the Inwem appellate court the rclesase dead was a. vraluntary act on the ':p§.,rt <1ft}n plaintiﬁand ~1(a) to 1:3; and um " 'rﬁzlmac deed is valid in law and oomicleratisn was aha V. paizianci,t11ez'dor¢,afmrupmldi11gtheva1i:iityofﬂ1e ,3'/.5 rclwner. deed, ma Lower appellate oaurt also went on be hold that the wiil atecuted by first cmmrabhan Singh in favour of the wound % aw. othem as pm 2113-20 '3 aka proved 1 defmdam: and in an-rving' at tkfm _v appellate court aha tank mm vﬁf eT;:ii?' V to 4 and he-kl mu: the m-at proved am} apart from were aha mam vs' the P1ﬁi1xﬁ'a$¢_V. : that: tn View the will _ by the arms; at" tin " mm; &e£§naa;;u:~1(a) has pa-arm-mi the mega ?R. $V;A._Km. 941/mas and 94212003. In V of ms appaal as well as allowing tbs the «imam by the am-: appenane A 110+/2093 has been pnefarred by the suﬁering the ravarsal of tk dettr-new at the tzfthe bvmr appellate mutt. %

10. I have mrd lwnwd aesnier munsel V.Tarah1m fer the appellant i.e., dﬁ5mdant~1(d), Lemma ooumel Shri '1'.N.Raghupathi for thsc h and aka heard learmd enamel %*i Shaatri for me eomeating R-1 ma M. i

11. All time appeals as they arim out of gas judi ef the Lower mutt, subatanﬁal $3 ::;f .the appaxxm court that the valid ma 1-xmtim and she of the dezﬁemanm that it contrary tn the law and ._ , ' ta the caridmcc on recerd?

ii) fkﬁappelhte ceurt oommiued an error in validity of the will Exl)-20 when attended with ausp£cioua circwtaxm R = ﬁnding of tha appanm court is mm-my & law and $13; ccmtrary m the. swam' an raw:-<1? '%/ 19

12. Learned seam' caunsel Shri V.'I'araka1'am for the appeﬁant i.e., de£andant--1[d),. at the aubmtbed that the. only aubetaniﬁml quation of "

arkea far camidez-a&n in all these appeejgu 3 .. whemar tbnre maid be 8. 'release' cf fawn: cfa pamon, who a right in the aubjcct matter at' 'J Wto

13. It '3 Singh, though was at being the husband pm-»m*m'ng right in the " because, that: suit praperties of Devubai in Vﬁém provhians gamma in seccsnm 11 11 Woman'; Right to Propemr Act, « : .1'Q3'7, tn Sthridhana p-ape:-ty hebW%g to E %% of Seetinn :2 'arm said Act whucih zemcludsa this husband at the first instance. In othm words, it $ * onlytlm childrenofﬂavubaiwho are mum to summed E./f ta tfm Sthridhana properties at' Devubai. mm:-e, it is command that Chammbhan Singh had 122::

mm right in the suit aoheauxe pwperﬁea n such, there couﬁ have bwn ::a:nmlxi' release crmdmbhan smh by his Singh had as pre-miatim a¢ Ame any right can the. suit aelxadtzla ~ ' '» net awe:

14. Ks the arguxmnt ef learned 3 deed Ex.P-1 in ﬁwur at' and as the burned cnumel aka did that the 131% deed was ' " AA '? :1 wing uzlduaa nﬂi or mama' in or fraud eaurta below have aoumxrrently held that the of undue inﬂuenm, fraud or man' were BaLc1:i11g in ths p@i@ and as aa$fact:ory Maw wasaheplacedbyﬂwphxhﬁﬁmpmwvethesaid 3% aﬁagaﬂom, this court. ifara, does not dam it necessary in tmzch upon the aspect of undue inﬂaxmma, ooerdon or fraud and wuukl. thezrefare, .. 2 ana.lys'n 9131)? §m¢::far as the $311131' '13' of the is oonomwwd.

15. Lea:-neat senior smﬁ A r-emﬁrm tr: semral this court and other Hgh a mlaaw amt: be a person having some: having a Iimitﬁ may pa-caperly be up in right}: of bath the of estate at the ﬁme " :31' deed must mist betwean the and the eﬁiact of mzme must _ §a& .< \\ ohm in t Qfme .

is, the-.rn:fare, seriaualy oenizmded that a '4 atybed as a rekaae dead, cannot, in law, a title to am what), befarc tramfam, had :19 Itiu aha arguﬁbytbaharnad ﬁr senior counsel that the irxtexztﬁon of that partim *3 the has': at dtm act: which results ha'-":3, domxmeazt and inteztation. b the very ﬁat 2 ir:merpremt:im1 of domzmaanm. contending °@si_ havixg mt been deﬁw even ﬁx Act, 195?, 'R, *3 subznittlad pmcipm laid down by the Ape.x[§:our:

ami ather the waning of relme, A in ma instant; case, 1:: (ea), bedm the eawcuted than mlease tn facilitate from It in under the saﬂ reieaae deed. will mm to ba brought V as such, the deed in quastinn did pays air any we in fawur of Chaxxirabhan Singh thus Iowa: appellate court was xzuatjuntified theviaaw takmby the ma: eourt as 31/ 23

17.'I}1<:t2'£aIoeurthaaraliedons%alc1eciai:amA tom1dthat,ast1Jaamwa.srmpre-acistingrigmirx C1%bhanS@h.,thserecou1d mt havebaena relmszs in Ha favaur by the plainﬁ' and ~Vi(a} to (e). 'Ihe. krwer appcllatc court. thus, tnﬁm note of the position Ym. law an meaning of relnase and. at 1owm- appellate court req1z1ma' V * €19. V. that ofthe nialcougrtneeada ta 13, The cIeciaiong. _"'iu9¢g; seam- otmzrml £n support of the 1966 ac 337, AIR 1967 so 1395, 5, AIR 1955 Madras 159, ws,«~mR 1957 Rajaathan 125, MR §£_3e§(a) Ka.r.L.J. 27, 2008 Am sow 6476,

107. Am 1964 Mysore 124 and %%%i%;«L%%%%%%%%29-55(1) 21. In addition tn the aﬁrsasaitl . am this girxciplem laid down in the mid cases, . 84mm' 1' mum} also reﬁwrad 12:: 'cm ddinmsﬂ ' n gar 're1eaae" as aonlzained in Jowitva Dﬂctionazy af Engkh Law, 11 Edition, Vahzmﬁ, Pages-1531-32. ,3?

I9. Sh:-i '1'.N.Raghupathy, learnodmunael for the appellant~--p1a.intiﬁ' in R.S.A.Ho. 11{J4f20D3, an 1113 aupplemnwd the above arguwm of V. coumel Shri V.'I'a:ralmmm and de:fee:1da::t»1(d)suceeeds in bar V ermzm m the Imam of the claims xma aharc £11 the % him that the am aha dew and ﬁrs: having nu pmmssmzg riﬂe mum mt have right ovum: the:

suit dead as there could be iii a stranger.

sis that the eantentican that " i.e., Ex.P~}., h a conveyance deed. has bum advanced only before the leanud mmm1 for the respondarxt in . to the argument cf lwrnod senior enamel Shri A % and 1&en'1ng' in the will E:x.D~20, it '3 that me will came into macaw within ﬁve dnynnftheemmutinrzofthaarelaawdeadandthasuit % 25 properw warm boqueathad in favour of the second dektnﬁ under whose cxantml the ﬁat duﬁendant wage li-Jim at that time. The relwse dead was A. V. the children nf Chandrabhan smgm ﬁat: the avaiding aoquhiﬁan but, within ﬁe3¢»AA3§3*s'_v 3595» fins: d.&:ﬁm Chandr>a_bhana ~.. tha property in favour of mg:

wife. mam these the médmaa of the aaurt, it cannot be said proved.

was no mterial placed to undua inﬂuence: and the also having not been evideme, it *3 aubmittml by ~$hri T.H.Ragln1pathy that mm the mic} §£-4 does mt ernabk: the; Eat defemant no cérczzmtamas, while adapting t& argumenm of senior eaume:-.1 8hri V.Tarakaram in map»:-.ct of tlw posilfmn in law, the lea:-ztuﬁ counsel fbr the p1a.'x1tiﬂ' R'./ sought for xmtoration of the judﬁt and dwree of tm trial czaourt.

22. Sh:-i G.Ba1akr'nhx1a Shastzri, mm:

appcarm for the contacting rmpondanm, Karmmaaa scam Act, 1957, g careﬁ_ Am 45 vmuﬂ make it elm that a imghngs reheat: dad is whe mu" hm WWW F1'°P~'-'-We and, therefara, in favour 9!' tbs ﬁrst x: is his aubmaaizzgxtxxat of mar that a deed of relaage one who, hﬁore the aubmmian made is that the a. docuwt 53 mitt Very relevant but * to ﬁnd want as be what the eonbenta of the ' m speak about and the nae of any puns' ular . like release 9: relinqumwrxent or tranafm' in an : irmtrume1:1t does not ctomzluaively dete1':1ﬁn:e the nature 3?/.

27

of the: warm, but the substance of the: transaction hm tn be l:=o1@ into.

24. an a decision of the Apex Ccurt, argued by him that it is met a pm-raquhitc in there carmnt be a transﬁar title m one before umxafer, had no interuw: in 2 K V' suhn:m5asinz1 that the in may also he wrded as Quiet! as release si1msE~..§1£ Singh mlmea in {mm right and " word "'eanveyame"

appeaz-mg' *;am;m Stamp Act, 1957, it is En tramferred inter vims and not atmrwme" provided far by Schedule-I. In mama.-, it in abut submitted that hunk of _ Act 410% wt mm' all types of conveyance or sadefmad.

E»:

25.Asfaraathe:dsecisﬁamrcfe.1-mdttwbytlzxe ﬁned aommel ﬁar tha appellants are Imned mums: Shri G.Ba]akrisma Shaotxi mug /' all those descmkioxm did not lay down the law canmt be a release unkwa the releaam has a pm-ting oamveyed by the mmor. BVz1i;,:'m°z me Ag daeciaion ufthe Am Co1:§:*:,_}m chm Vs. AS.RA.Anm;gﬂw§;V in Am 1957 Sc. 1395, im coniaenﬁons put forward the appellants.

"r::-o%d, the learned counsel £9: by 1ﬁe1'r'1ng' to the mm' in to that of D.Ws.1 to 4, enwctution of the wiﬁ ha been the requiwnt of law aonoerrﬁng alga has ham: met and the aim court as _ lower appellate court; have also haald that the __ Vt ofthe will has been proved by the defmﬂaniau ﬁmn ms, the my p1aim'a'am hm' childrm who akareca:mwacimmi11prope1'tieuundea'thawi11,aoI;1 % ' 31.Inthelghtoftheaforeeaidargumente ndva11oedbytheleI1'nedcounIe1ﬁ3rtheparﬁeuandt1'J2_ decisions referred to by them. the that and the uubntnnh-Ill' quauﬁon of law that reql-I15 the 333' _ ' an to whether the release deed V' Chandrabham Singh had no question, it referred to by learned am! the law hid down in__t.'i'1eae . Thayyil Mammo Vs. Kouuarh inAIR 1966 so 337311 has been held by that the nomenclature of a deed and stamp paid an it, though relevant, are ' Veetgohxehm on the question of oomtruction and the aha held that a regimred inmzrument, though eﬂatyled an a release deed relea.ai.ng the right. title and i111:a1'eutoftheex:ecutnntir1nnypcr-opertyinfavourofthe 9% 32 relmsw far valuable comideration, may opera?» as a coma;-zyanoa, if it dearly diackaaas an ititmmtinn ﬁn ﬁt-act' 1"-:._ wamfmu

34. The d-ecisinn of the Apex Cant: .4 Kappa Swan-mg came:-' Vs. reported ix': AIR 1967 Sc 1395; by learned senior that 8. reiesaao can be 3 form of conveyance by intmt so another : '£:a_& it§§}v. relmae than cperama

35. Senwzilccdari Pm-why' as ~ 'A Vmwza. Ram: Pamiia reported inﬁll? 1954 Madras 3, it was High Court that, if the appellant had the pmpmy at the time of mamciautan . aﬁi-clrzanee of aumrecding by survizuorahip in afber the death afhh fathm-, t& rarxtzmziaﬁon " imam' ﬁn deed weuki mt clmzba him U wizthany title tn the pa-opmty. Rm.111ciat:ion mmmtbe in % 33 £avourofa%n,whehadahvaadytitlatothemtate the @3520: of which is only tn anlarge. the Re.m1nciation does not vat m a wan a ﬁtk: V did not exist.

36. 'The deéion in the was A Bheema Gowdefa reperbed in &edm ﬁ'ect1ve' to tramsfer title j can cmly

37. It ﬁx at thc tramaction and the iarmted by maasna at' the

- gr observation of a Full Bench "qf Court En the case (if Chx'efCan::'ali£ng Ra_fa-witty Oﬁiwr Vs. Rustaom Pargapla-6 efthnjudment ef tlm Patna Hgh' _ {'-iaagrt "m the me at' Bandy' ems: Raf Vs. Jay mm-g, in Am 1915? Pam 70¢, is mm in by burned aeninr mmzsel V. in contend that the 31/ relmae. prmupposzm amiatexxce of title. 'm a thh-d person ancldam nntpm-porttnracxxmavay fnattitletohim. 3%. Ram: Chwan nae: Vs. Gitja E repomd in Am 1966 ex: 323. in ma Mme wmat j held by the Aptnc Court that, iv evidmwe an wimt the those claimhg unsia' an the instrument itaeﬁ' the estappel, though amm;,1 gm.

40. mg Flora Margcmet Vs. Kar.L.J. 27, 5:: a bemheidtxm deed cf absolute. awner of property caxnrmt be a deed ef release. 41; dmkinn in the case :31' Ranganqraksmzma r reported in was AIR Saw 6476, in h by the ﬁned aenisor oaunwl to contezxd that * usarmt am is eﬁ'ect1ve' as mm-as joint: family properﬁm but not separate which could be E6 35 domonlybyaeomeyamaandarcleaseinlawmaybe eﬁactnd étlm Ear atmsideratiaza at for no uc:ux::s.idex*a5mz;:;-

42. The ruﬁ c:c:mt::'u£:$n reﬁm-red 1:3 by 1% court in thus ca3s;c;»__ef Q' Krishnappa, reporhed in 19mm Chronicle 281, am in-ought 1:: mm :3' mmm that the inmz1tin;:g of be anoertaimd. The. {if by the Supreme Cguﬁ; on the czaoiam A decﬁtimz of the spmzaiagggcjj Court, reported in AIR mm to the court's ammo' 1; to T the mutant maecubas to he 9. dead of release, it in xzstitmtrue it as a dacummt of a Rom what it purporm to bc, may ﬁteminn cf the emacutant can he better 4' by eawcutirg an imtrunzmlt of a dﬂez-en' 1: 35

43.AIR1964My3ore124iarefen'edtoby14:axne& amzior cnunsal Slrri Vffaralmram for the appellant to atxbnﬁt that, gmaﬁy spwldng, both the rekaase and partition maaaupﬁa 'rm existence cf 9. comma in the parties tea a tramacﬁon. The last at' the A' % in the case of V mM Vs. T repozmd in 1%a1} Mya.L.J. 21, to T the court in the mas.mng' (if the tm'ma___ me' .

'releaaez' as fauna m the Mynore ' +4. I have of the court same' 1- _ " in order ta ﬁnd out as to whether the 1% senior mumel hz farwur cf 9. person, who right in the suit property, : VV mt.

+5." anawcrirg the said oententimx, it in the aftheterrn V V. and far tkﬁ purposes, mfcrm will have: to be he the news' a1 by the courm as well as 'ha 3/, the apizniean of thc learxmd autlwrs as wall at no the di:ti::naxymea$%oft11etm'm'z*e@se'inIr:$&1 parlam.

46. 'Beam' in arplaimd to Jawitee nsgctjonaxy of Engln' 11 Law, ;l§&Ek{itibn',W{§§Eiaxn:a~"_ at pages-1531-32:

"Raease [Lat Relazcaiio], ﬁisghﬁzﬁe,-..nrv'§ renunciatien cof aﬂ #163 a eawn or an or alrmdy in pcsat:§s'éiéi§z;,:~$';1'i:.é; Vérb. in which is operams or

- ' to one or rmre.

' iz1"»;p§?¢§§ses€tinn (mitter I' , as A tzxmveys his ixaterwt to A' or w@-e one of mare than 2 conveys his inﬁt to am er M-gm not all of tha others so as to A share. It also operatnw without 3 mamas where one jaunt tenant his estate to the othcr 01' all the " " othea' joint tenants so as not to create a . In aorzsequmum 9f the privity betwaaen sunk parties, a fee sighs umuki £7 39 'M13535. (1) " 'Release' in the gazing at ducharm of the rght or action which any hams:-cxammagaum mam, or 12% Iami ("I'e1-xnes (is In Lay; Co-wel: Jacxah}. d'atint:1:ic«nhe'twaena.I-'2ECEIFFanda.re1ease' _ K 55: the reﬁmse axtmguz' ' has the». ' .4 "

whm given, in itself but a receipt is only A' 2 am if the proof be k made, it caxmm; prgperatew paywt against B., Bowers 9. 2'? I4'. E:i§V__V2'56j';~§"

+8. Bla§,:IK'$ Edition, at pages maaning of the

5. The am: of car right to axmther, or of % « ofit. ......

' of 'release' as found in 4E7.¢'S0tl' éB:3 has been referred to by the in pa:-mph»-+1 and 42, it is mamtiomd % term 'release? at; cimcribcd 511 Artie-In 45 of the Schcadula 32: the Karnatnlm Stamp Act, 1957 and it rmds 6:11.13:

Qwcrizzrtﬁzran efwkmﬁmt .Ah't.4-5.R¢lowc, tbathto say, any £m1:r% (mt being szmh 3 release as is a clam upon another person 02' speciﬁed property.»

(a) whme the reﬁt-hast:

betweaen the the family :E.::z3€c:r!';_"» ;21:'an. - mmny in tn a pasaxx for the 'if pmpose sf clause (19) mxsans huabazﬁ, witia, son-, iather, nnotlm, bmthm', wiﬁel children of _prede.eeaaed bmthm. mm. provided far by Sec-mu 24), wtmebg 9. persen mmzzmaa ' value of the and or on the or mm 91' claim nmeunoed, as the case (uﬁm 30(1) an tbs or vahm czf may be (which is the subject matim af Rekxaae} or mmidacratinn £9: such release, whicheva is highfr-'=1 Rupees one thousand.

3:"

Ac 41 husband/chzildmn af predﬁed siatcr, wk of a ad sun and chiidresu cf 3. d sum or predeceased daughmr.


(ci mime cf morwge rights
<:~r&m

 "riunr as   
(N0-131  11°    7
 bf   

51. 'I115 meanﬁ    to
be mm 'mo at'-this  ma' is

e:xpk1nned' no my smjgm $:p.rm tha Aiym-'s 1% Law page 1713 thus:

"noun. «ma. deed of mhane 73, in marfs tight in the m why has paamim." mm, % is «-2, mhnwai deﬁnition, mat by it malw-s rm iui*1t:et1;..¢;;-_ rulmse has an V ixzjpaaaeasaﬂsn or met. A quit I. '3 tune of than rmular *1 'ax' pxﬂpmty known in law, the cmly mode in mm"

party ask pzmperty and dug; mat its warrant the ﬁle."

% ,1 52.111 'hm decia-km mrliew rxﬁerred ta i.e., 2008 SCW 64'?6, at parawph-43, it is omerved thtm:

'43. A daad sf "raIeaae" ﬁat a eomiam-ati£»wMj%jA%% ' _ is a tramaouian. When. tI11.:a;:,AbV'a_. m£;:ase-- f'!$*.""'::

made for comidaratian.

mmidawawon and ether. " V' are mqnird tn be aaential elementn at' a pmpmy by 91' Im-

bnc:tm' for a of it, man. mg 25 of the ﬁmt mm am:

fact situation

53. d%"aIso came up for 4"v;;¢rmide:_§si1ix:~n in" ceése of Smt. Hora Magma: Vs. in zmoqsz Ks.r.L.J. 27, and a ofthis court has held thus:

V deed rzaeam the eomasyance 2 ,9: a'fpéraaz:'a right or innemt. wmeh he has Mug or property he enothar that has the poaswaian tmreof or some whats man. 1: is the mlmquishmmt of soma rigkztarhmﬁths apwaonwhohaasome ixxtm-mt in 12% progty 6.131 atmh interest as % ur 44 qualﬁm him for or avaiﬁng himself of tin ﬁgizzt or benem so rexlinquﬁhnd. m L9,. 9,-" .9._.g,; .3. ,. " « ....... .."' (exwhash by me) 54-. From a careful * assigned to the term ﬁamwkng mmhmimns ' t E

55. 'Tbs mm «Mme» as 45 of the Kmmmm Sm3;nt1;t "A.ct. that the person must be the pamun who must . nght' . Even in the of Engm; Law, wmeh I have remse' apmmzes in 5 modes and I have axoexpted aarlier aha malces it V. V r (:1-dw ix: mmtituta 9. 'relwae' unda the madqb), mm 3 a-amrmm in me eebsmce of ' ' . T&uaeofa:pressinn'anx:thm'peamo11'ir1.Fs.rt1x;Ie:a' 45 cf tha Stamp Act, 1957, aka givw an mioation that }./.' 45 the mhmsa does not caontemlam that the person in whosa ﬁvuur right of imnrast is relmed should a pre-ﬁimting ﬁght.

56. The 'release am"

maplained in Tm Law :.m* n of p.12 m «% % mm mkm it char practice, it makes no has an aristing amine in a release lcmwn. to law'; made in pratrtsbc I. the dachiana upon which Lg Shri V.'I'ara.hmm placed re1xazme' . case of Tayyil Marm Vs. Ksttaah' 1966 SC 337), the Szxparm Court had _ that 9. reﬁtered imtrumem though stykad a % a deed releasing the right, tide and m' ms: of tam: in any property in favour cf mlcasee for valuahh ccmsidmtinn, may operate an a ctmveyazme, if % IMO it clearly dﬁcloam an izztmison ta eﬁbct a izransfar. In thesm'ddec'mion,ithas be: a raw in famtzsur of a person whee docs "

pre-existing right in the prope'rty i.e., rehasjed; ijj %

59. In the case of Ax-umzwm enemy and '_ 19$? SC 1395 which was pu-gagged the 1mm Sxncoumal appellant though it has éaeea can be usefully by a person having havixg at limited estate the iajaématas as emlargamamt of however did not laid " memes: that there: cannot be a release:

. who dew mt have a pm---e:r.:iat.ing the very eenwnﬁon put forward . Sxxcoumel was canaidesred by the Apa:

A' para 6 and ultixnatnaly, the Court want on to A % that me dackinm reﬁerreri '13: before it do mt ray the kw that at docwt stylﬁ as a 41% ¢f mleasemnnotinlawtzransﬁm-titletoonewho before 3/.

tmmfem had no interest in the propm-ty. The observations of the Apex Court raquire in be at tkﬁs juncture and para 6 of the said dccisi<>:n." 'Couxmel naxt submitted only enlarge an miam1g_tit1e"nf n V' anti there can he no He L relied on -«gbﬁerjnatian in I-Iutchi gcwda: v.amm Mad

1.: 324 at a».;p..41;. * A relaxant: cannot tramfer: V' dbacznraﬁon In 1%3'-.2Mad.LJf'_§%.,,f:s,..391:(AIR 1954 Mad 5 at p.s)kk%ﬁRmummtsa§zk must be in iiawur a wit": already title 13:: tm mtaﬁe, rm A in mzlarge the rght.

L' not vast in 3 pemcm a title = How, it canrmt he % diaputédvifihata ralcase can be usefully AA as form of conveyance by a person " same right of intmmt to anmhcr having' '§ai Hllﬂtﬁd wtatc, e.g., by a. mmaindar man to a ' " * twr1tfor%e,andth¢ra1ea.aet}1¢.<n.o;2«m'atmaa m tdme1m1md estate. Butin thiscasa,wearanotconcm-'zmadw'iths.re1ease % a.«*"""' in femur of that: holdm of a ﬁnitsd «state. Here the deed was an fawn: ofa perm-:1 havim ma interest in :1» pmpmy, and it could mt eﬁmt as an t of an existing eataﬁgj "

it was intended in he and was a. M ownaraﬁp. A dead caﬁed agdzsasié . can, by using words of T " "

tramfer we to cm 1mviﬁg..__3:1<> mg mare tramfer. Tbs: eases by S mt autkwrities for pfbgiﬁaifizﬁx the opm-ative wards cf must be igzared. I8 8aP.C1ﬁ;*¢2*a;§.t_m::I1§igf;&v_ 1%3- 2 Mad LJ aha-fdncumen:

could méi bmuse a mmw §1f--'.L?1ﬁ§{3eurt of Wards ﬁanofaclaim,it release. In Humhi G~owd¢r4V.V_:Bhée1ﬁa Gowd&z', 1959-2 Mad LJ

33) ms qumtinn. was 'A of further aaauranaoe:

_ by directing um t At;-mawcﬁiﬁamlmsedeedcradeedof con'»;:§§.'ta1m$ and the court held that the ff ahouki mtamxtae a deed of 'me decisiom do not lay down that a dead styieé a. deed sf release wxsmt in law, t:ramfe:r tiﬂs to one who befcre tin ﬁamfsrhadmﬂmmmtmﬂwpmpernf. }.."

;.

lg.

60. In tbs fave at' the: aforwaid state.-mamt ef the Apex Court, the nthm damkions 1ﬁ5e1-red ksarmci Ccaumeel for than appellanm namely in AIR' 1954 MAD 5, am 1955 159,%&%%%AI;§%:%3s? kk PATHA 705, therefare, mm; be: af n;::e~ % the appeﬂantas.

61. 111?: anurt ?nV Mari Vs. A.Lmmme a rek.-aae ' 'A , of 3 pei?gon'-2. which he has in a that has the aziscma astatze therein. It .- , '_ ii; r§lin£§i:1.s}_;;p,ant of same right or benﬁt _£:: p¢t'a_<)I§ whe ha: some intmt in the such inmut as qualiﬁes him I I a '.';-t 1-3;:-..-: .3 *- * _e =§.s.~;'~.;~..' '0 Is"

pertywsubjecxt mama: of mleasa meif ad rmtirzfauourofaaiez'. % name ofthe ﬁther Chadrabhan Sixgh and he was aha in pmasaian of the ma; am and it was the aesfmga: the Chandrabhan shag}; that in memory of%;m% _ Iiievuhai, a hnspital was to he put up in of n .. All 111636 gt: to show had mum imam-est in the asui1:"and n_j:':at o._ , total stranger by any Inseam.

64. As ﬁat aavaxm comet} ' no missed on under the rm of an the release as Ex.P1 and wmch 81 and 82 of the paper book who had relinquished property in fawur of mmidmaﬁon of R'a.5,£!Dﬁ]~ b%re the lower Appellate Court has alac: j t111it. €:onaidm'atian was received by the cﬁldren ' relwse dead in ﬁvaur of their ihther. V if no oomidmmtian ms been xwveaﬁ can it be that mlmse deed bceomes inyalid? Tim amwcr Ev 52 wﬂlhawtobaintlwnemﬁveinvigwofﬁxe Lawlaﬁ downhyﬂzeﬁpex Courtintheundermexzﬁnned

65. In the mac of K.s.z=:a1mh (2003 AIR sew eersygaue. gym rm ' * k held tifat rmmxziatixnn in the comidmution er may not _»for *<26issidagfé;'»5gg::n,, the Apw Caurt at "4-6. 'The Ear ' Specza1' B£mch of the f Comroﬂirxg x of Revenue, Rm' (AIR 1977 cf thc pamt of gjamp dug:V_V_ ﬁrha1:'eir1 it was categarioally

5.%;%.%[i%;Em a name, in law, may be A ﬁn' cxxmideratian or ﬁn': no L zmmiam-wen. In emm case, if the AA G%% as as. rahquishment or ' of a claim by one persen aaothw or minat a. apec1fied' prope1't3r,£twi11beax-elease ..... }/ If Again in tm enema dechizm at parayaph-51, the Apm Court wmt can to obaerve that comﬁdm-aténn, strain. in Indian wntzsxt, would mean a reasanable equixraleri-t--:_' othm vahzahke 123.2% passed an by the prornhee or by tm tramferor tn and a.$ect1o' :1 3 aka a oons1d¢x'a' V 'V of Scctiom 122 and 123 mug cvf

55. Apart Rom it aim pertinent tn Cnurt in the case at' Nfmdi DEW;

reportad the caurt mm "The in a dncument a (1%, ayﬁent or feearmal irmunmt, introducaci ta up to the operative part at' _ (1) mrrmve recitah which set = ; an facts (:11 which the inmumen: is and (23 'nt:codux:mry mm which m:plnint11emoti\ae£ortheope1:°ati:vepart. Wwﬁﬂmmcimisazadaarbuttheopez-aﬁva part is amﬁuoua, the necitaia gs-Vern the $7' mum?"

mmtruetian. Normally, a recital is evidanoa as agaitmtthe parbim to the Emtrumam and tlw chiming undmé thm. In an at-3&1: exp. the hmmﬁ imeisf the ream}; :3pm'a1:a ;a2s _ an mtoppel, though that would not % a coI1a'£m'al mattezr." Q' 6?'. So far as the axacution of a regmmd aomgnt as me Apa Court, in the mwﬁed in (200695 mc%35a, me is a pmmumption 73 validly cmcuted % tsmrefm, prima ﬁaciaa am of proaf thus wcauld be evidence to rebut the mm, tm plaintiﬁ' and other cl1t1:iren' smrn had attained' majority . Em. the age gnmp of25-46 ymm azzui apart _ _» 4' many cf tham wen: hghly' eacluwtad being by aaeapm the; czomidc./raﬁon cf Rs.5,G0Ol- as V would be awn frozn Ex.P~1, the lower appellate caurt, % thmrefore, ﬁghtly has chi that the plaintiﬁ' am other clﬁldren was fully coxmcinus of tkir rezaaam ma 1-igm in the suit items in % A father. Merely because, aubsaquexnly, the 3 ., signed a. xnorgage deed in ﬁvour the axgna' turns of the childrm V. by C , that «ﬂow not1Vui'e=:z.::.;;t:1a:;' dwd . . I I '. 'A A --.

senior murmei ,.aaremant»1(a), as ' the mrmideraﬁnn is enly a daucumnt Ex.P%-1 is 3. Bmm Aﬁar oonsideraﬁnn, the said 3 'appeal to me: far two reasens. the Apm Court, in the decisinm tbaawae reported in ' 6-4'75, having held that a relwsa will be without aomﬂaraﬁsan, 'ﬁzz. the instaxxt ease, 3 mxanaitieaatinn of Ra.5,GO0[- was I-emtﬁved by reimaora, but the said amunt mane: be considered as a nominal amount because, 82% Apm Court, in the ,3/, f T T, W very decéxicn citad %1rI1'm' via, Ranganayakamma Vs. Praleanh, dwﬂkxg with the mnwntion. af nsminal oomftderation, quoted the harm auumr Anson has $1-pmd a passage from Amorfa Law of andtheaaidmragnphﬁasundnrt A' T

-= mom: mnaideratinn' apﬁr .... .., 35 mm of sum nr c:amida'a1.'iDnr 1 _ memaisomd as eamidm-atiﬁn. b§1t;---- S nsweasarily pail.

by Lord WiIbm'forc§e"«(;ii1.a--_sg.§;e;a<éi1'L[w§t.'1 which all the am :x:mnb¢t's. ¢f t:i?1§:af.Hcii1:§¢':VVi:§f'i;ords ca1'nct1I'rae¢i}' Co. m. u. ﬁreetx. husband sold a 40,000, up big wife ﬁn» 2 size; It that the wife was, for 13(2) of the Laﬂ 1925. a "pumhaaer for money ._e14 ' so that thc sale to hat " bum' an warm' and aptian. to , the 1and,wmch had hm granted * oiiﬁ of the c::mpk's children. It was met " ts decide whether the comidantiun for the sale was nominal but Lordwﬁmﬁrmaaﬁthathewouﬁhnw 'gwt dﬁcuity" in an holding; anti that "Ta E6' equate 'rmnzﬁnal' with 'inadequate' or men '$133515' ﬂmdequatn' oomideraﬁsn wmzld enxbark the law on inquiries which 1 tanner'; j the facts of the case tha 2 500 % paid and was more tlmn amgmmmg 2 that the camidearation was 5:1 . "

mm of the mm mm gum am. aAuwM um atzatad eamidm-anion ma my 9: 1;, or 9. it would have been been paid, or the 'ﬁm*ei'am,-- where, it would be 1133,03" t' ' ubaervatiom @633 in the em 5. Tmst C-:3. Ltci. Vs. Green, % " by the plainiiﬁ' and athar Smh was a mare cm rupee "'?'O. In the @121 of the foregoing measuring, the _ qumbian of law rahad and xnmztinnaed at the afthﬁjudit *3 amwweti thus. A rclcase % canbe made mtonly to at pm'-sonwhc has a pre-existing right in the property that *3 the rmbjact matteVr...__cf reamse, but mm can aha be 3 release in paason who has same imam-eat or who 'a in and mm' eat of me propcrty x 13 ttathm wards, the 1.me:nas' 1:

pcsoesa med mt be me 125 but some izltwt in pcmsmsien and khatha in atm- £15 such 3 persvm a ="d$criptJ'm:1 gr mzme in Arﬂe1a:: --!«5 of Sump Act mar ﬁ-cm the learned 3%' 1- mums} Shri appeﬂant. can it be said that theme in favour of a. perscm. who has no transfer. imefom, ca&ter1oe of a pre- right in not 3 sim qua man but, on the asthm- the parser: in whose. favzaur the mamas ia made hava some izzbarest short :3? title in the gnvﬁty, /9»:

$9 wmch is the subject matter of release, and the said interest cmzlzi. be beéng in poamwsian axﬂ exajaymﬁnt. saw the khatha in respect of the propertsiw. .. 2 atand1ng' in 1:73 mma and oma these fulﬁbd, mm could be no be: far "m favour of such othar persanqrho warm right in ma suit A carmat be made in a and who is not in war the WWW» au bmntia1 quxwtinn of law which at the win Ex.1:w-29, both been p1-wed. The wimmsw ofthe aefea.-mums vim, 9315.1 tn 4., a p¢:.¢n about rm execution at' the win by Sizgfn. The raquirenumzxt of pmaf of r ofthe wm also has been aaﬁmfzed as eould be h {mm the $511113" ofthe ocmrm below. 'I'he1&z-3, ~ :~ when the warm balm? have mksen 8. consaurmnx viaw of tiaemaiima-ar1daﬁnd?q7nwrdedanfacts§aucha 37'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court