Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, on adjudging the cancellation of an instrument, the court may require the party, to whom such relief is granted, to make any compensation to the other which justice may require. Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act says that where a person professes to transfer immovable property, which he has no right to transfer, and as part of the same transaction confers any benefit on the owner of the property, such owner must elect either to confirm such transfer or to dissent from it; and in the latter case, he shall relinquish the benefit so conferred, and the benefit so relinquished shall revert to the transferor. Section 64 of the Contract Act provides that the party rescinding a voidable contract shall, if he has received any benefit thereunder from another party to such contract, restore such benefit so far as he may be, to the person for whom it was received. A combined reading of these provisions, as held in Cheriathu Varkey v. Meenakshi Amma, 1964 KLT 952, only shows that in cancelling the documents, the plaintiff need only surrender benefits received as justice may require. Such benefit required by the justice is the actual benefit received under the impugned transaction, which is avoided. It may not be conducive to justice to allow the minor to have double advantage by avoiding the transaction and at the same time retaining its benefits. As held in Chinnaswami Reddi's case 1918 (35) MLJ 652 and Chundrasekhara Pillai and Ors. v. Kochu Koshi, 1961 KLT 1018, "benefit" mentioned in Section 64 of the Contract Act is only benefit received under the impugned transaction directly contemplated by it and not any future benefits by any speculative or non-speculative investment of that benefit. 'Benefit' or 'advantage', referred to in Sections 64 and 65 of the Contract Act, do not relate to profit derived from the investment of the benefit. Sometimes the investment may result in loss also. In a given case, the benefit may be only the actual consideration and its interest. But, where the consideration for the impugned transaction itself is the purchase of another property in the name of the minor, that property must be taken as the benefit derived by the minor and it must be directed to be returned. Value of properties might have gone up and return of the consideration in money alone may work out injustice to the defeated purchaser and undue gain to the minor. Here, there is no case that any particular amount was received. The benefit received by the minor is another property, which was also sold and another item was purchased. As matters now stand, Ext. B3 represents the consideration for Ext. B1. There is no case for anybody that any other benefit was derived by the minor. Ext. B3 itself is not owned by the minor, but the document shows that it is the consideration. Therefore, the right under Ext. B3 will have to be re-conveyed, subject to what is stated above.