1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7362  OF 2003

   JAGANNATH (D) THRU LRS. & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

    SUNDARBAI (D) THRU LRS. & ANR. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Impleadment applications are allowed.

2. The  plaintiff,  who  is  now  represented  by  his  

legal  heirs,  filed  a  suit  before  the  trial  court  

through his next friend and guardian Champalal on 30th  

December, 1960, praying that the Sale Deed dated 25th  

July, 1956, executed by defendant No. 2 Sundar Bai, his  

mother, a pardanasheen lady, during his minority in  

favour of defendant No.1 Jagannath be set aside as the  

sale  had  been  effected  without  legal  necessity  and  

under  the  undue  influence  of  defendant  No.  1.   On  

notice, defendant No. 2 i.e. the plaintiff's mother  

supported  the  claim  of  the  plaintiff  and  suit  was  

contested only by defendant No. 1  who is the vendee.  

In his written statement, it was pointed out that sale

2

deed  had  been  executed  for   valid  consideration  on  

account  of  legal  necessity  and  to  discharge  an  

antecedent debt  and that the suit had been filed by  

the plaintiff in collusion with his mother.  The suit  

was decreed by the trial court and it was held that the  

sale was without legal necessity and that defendant no.  

1 had exercised undue influence on defendant No. 2 as  

she was a pardanasheen lady.  The matter was thereafter  

taken  in  appeal  by  defendant  No.  1   which  was  

dismissed, though some of the observations with regard  

to the undue influence were set aside.  The defendant  

still aggrieved filed a Second Appeal before the High  

Court.  The High Court framed the following substantial  

questions of law:-

“1. Whether the finding to the effect  that the sale-deed executed in favour of  the  defendants  was  without  legal  necessity and was not for any benefit of  the  minor,  is  contrary  to  the  documentary and other evidence produced  in  the  case  and  is  liable  to  be  set  aside?

2. Whether Sundar Bai had one  half share in the suit property and at  least  to  that  share  the  defendants  became entitled under the sale-deed?

3. Whether in view of the act  that  the  plaintiff  had  not  made  any  claim with regard to the mesne profits  for the period prior to the institution  of the suit, his claim for future mesne  profits could not be decreed?”

3

At the time of arguments, it was conceded before the  

High Court that question No. 3 was not required to be  

answered in the light of the Full Bench decision of the  

High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Amar Singh v. Chandra  

Shekhar Rao reported in AIR 1984 M.P. 1.  The High  

Court  nevertheless  confirmed  the  judgments  of  the  

courts below on the other two questions of law and  

dismissed the appeal.  The present matter is before us  

after the grant of special leave.   

3. We find on a bare perusal of question Nos. 1 and  

2 that have been raised before the High Court that they  

are not substantial questions of law and are based on  

an appreciation of the evidence.  The High Court, has  

in its judgment, dealt with the evidence to justify the  

conclusion  that  the  sale  was  without  any  legal  

necessity and one of the reasons that weighed with the  

High Court was that the husband of defendant No. 2,  

Sundar Bai was the owner of 110 bighas of agricultural  

land while the sale had been effected for a paltry sum  

of Rs. 605/- which clearly revealed that there was no  

legal necessity more particularly as some other pieces  

of land had already been sold by Sundar Bai earlier.   

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however,

4

submitted that even assuming that question No.1 had  

been  correctly  answered,the  defendant  appellant  was  

entitled to one half share in the suit property as the  

said  property  belonged  to  Sundar  Bai  alone.   This  

matter has also been dealt with by the High Court in  

para 10 of the judgment with a positive finding that  

the land that had been sold to the defendant-appellant  

belonged  to  the  minor  and  nobody  else.   We  are,  

therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  no  interference  is  

called for in this appeal under Article 136 of the  

Constitution of India.  Dismissed.

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J     [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN]

NEW DELHI MAY 06, 2010.

5