Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The sale-deed, Exhibit 85, dated September 21, 1903, was in respect of nine lands for Rs. 800. Out of the nine lands, four lands were re-purchased by Sabu by Exhibit 87 in May 1905 for Rs. 400. The lands were transferred to the name of defendant No. 1 in 1904 and continued to stand in her name. The deed of gift was in respect of ten lands including survey numbers 181 and 336 sold to defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

The learned Subordinate Judge held that the sale-deed was passed not for cash as stated in the deed but for past and future cohabitation, but held that the suit in respect of the property comprised in the sale-deed was barred by limitation as defendant No. 1 was in adverse possession for more than twelve years. With regard to the deed of gift the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that it was for past and future cohabitation and the deed of gift was void and the suit was within time, and, therefore, awarded the plaintiff possession of the lands comprised in the deed of gift, and ordered him to pay compensation to defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for the improvements made by them in survey numbers 181 and 336 comprised in the deed of gift.

34. The case of Ram Sarup v. Bela (1883) I.L.R. 6 All. 313, P.C. is distinguishable on its special facts as the gift in that case was made to the mistress and her children, and it was difficult to distinguish the gift to the woman from the gift to the children and the gift to the woman was considered to rest on the valid and moral consideration on which it was stated to rest at the time. It was held by the Judicial Committee that the gift was unconditional and even if it was otherwise, the gift to which an immoral condition was attached remained a good gift, while the condition was void. In the lower Court an attempt was made by the plaintiff to impeach the deed of gift on the ground of undue influence. It appears that on that day Sabu passed a sale-deed, Exhibit 66, in favour of one Shidappa. I agree with the finding of the lower Court that defendant No. 1 did not dominate the will of Sabu, and that the deed of gift was not induced by undue influence.

51. My conclusion, then, is that the older transaction is unimpeachable because of adverse possession, but the so-called gift of 1917 was void and can be set aside or ignored.

52. I agree that both appeals and cross-objections must be dismissed with costs.