- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Birupakshya Das v. Kunja Behari
Factual and Procedural Background
This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate Court arising out of a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and damages assessed at Rs. 210 for three years. The plaintiff is the brother of the father of the present defendant. The disputed land originally belonged to Dibakar, the father of the defendant, and the defendant himself. The plaintiff claims title based on an unregistered sale-deed dated 27-5-1940 for Rs. 250. The case is governed by the Central Provinces Tenancy Act. The plaintiff alleges the sale was executed by Dibakar on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor son Junjabehari out of legal necessity, binding the defendant. The plaintiff claims possession through bhag tenants since 1948 and that the defendant was a bhag tenant from 1948 to 1950 but ceased paying rent from 1952, prompting the suit for ejectment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the unregistered sale-deed executed in 1940, governed by the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, conveys valid title to the plaintiff.
- Whether the transaction was supported by legal necessity, particularly regarding expenses incurred for the marriage of the defendant when a minor.
- Whether expenses for performing a marriage that contravenes the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, can constitute legal necessity under Hindu law.
- Whether the plaintiff’s possession through bhag tenants and the defendant’s status as a bhag tenant affect the plaintiff’s claim to title and possession.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The plaintiff contends that the sale-deed is genuine, supported by consideration, and binding under the Central Provinces Tenancy Act.
- The transaction was executed out of legal necessity, including payment of a prior bond and marriage expenses of the defendant as a minor, thus validating the alienation.
- Possession has been held by the plaintiff through bhag tenants since 1948, and the defendant’s failure to pay rent since 1952 justifies ejectment.
Respondent's Arguments
- The defendant challenged the genuineness of the sale-deed and denied that consideration passed.
- The lower appellate court found that the portion of consideration attributed to marriage expenses (Rs. 140) does not constitute legal necessity, thereby invalidating the transaction as binding on the defendant.
- The defendant’s possession as a bhag tenant from 1948 to 1950 was acknowledged, but the plaintiff failed to prove title.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| ILR (1937) 2 Cal 764, Ram Jash Agarwalla v. Chand Mandal | Legal necessity under Hindu Law does not sanction early marriage of male minors, and alienations for marriage expenses of minors are not supported as legal necessity. | The court relied on this precedent to hold that expenses incurred for performing a marriage that is criminal under the Child Marriage Restraint Act cannot be considered legal necessity, thus invalidating part of the transaction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the genuineness of the sale-deed and found it to be a genuine transaction supported by consideration. However, the crucial issue was whether the transaction was supported by legal necessity, especially the portion of consideration attributed to marriage expenses of the defendant as a minor. The court analyzed the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, noting that while the marriage is valid, it is a criminal act under the statute to perform such a marriage before the prescribed age.
The court reasoned that incurring expenses for a ceremony punishable as a criminal act cannot constitute legal necessity under Hindu law, which empowers the family karta to alienate property only for lawful necessities. The court relied on the precedent of Ram Jash Agarwalla v. Chand Mandal to support this view, emphasizing that Hindu law does not sanction early marriage of male minors and that such marriages have been disapproved by statute.
Accordingly, the court confirmed the lower court’s finding that the transaction was not supported by legal necessity to the extent of Rs. 140/- of the total consideration, rendering the transaction not binding on the defendant. The appellant’s counsel conceded that absence of legal necessity would result in non-suit, which the court accepted without further inquiry into other issues.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final ruling was to dismiss the second appeal. The plaintiff’s suit failed due to the absence of legal necessity supporting the transaction, specifically the marriage expenses portion of the consideration. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
This decision directly affects the parties by affirming that the plaintiff cannot claim title or possession based on the challenged sale-deed. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles concerning legal necessity and the Child Marriage Restraint Act.
1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate Court arising out of a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for damages which has been assessed by the plaintiff at Rs. 210/- for three years. The plaintiff is the brother of the father of the present defendant Admittedly the disputed land belonged to Dibakar, the father of the defendant, and the defendant himself. The plaintiff bases his title on the basis of an unregistered sale-deed dated 27-5-1940 (Ex. 1) which purports to be for a consideration of Rs. 250/-.
2. It is to be mentioned here that the case is coming from the district of Sambalpur and is governed by the Central Provinces Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs version is that the transaction, which was executed by Dibakar on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor son Junjabehari, was for legal necessity, and as such is binding against the present defendant Kunjabehari. The plaintiffs further case is that possession was delivered thereafter and the plaintiff remained in possession of the property in suit through bhag tenants since 1948 and then for the years 1948 to 1950 the defendant was also inducted into the land and possessed as a bhag tenant of the plaintiff and since 1952 the defendant is not paying the rent due, so the present suit has been brought in 1952 for ejectment.
3. The Courts below have found that the sale-deed is a genuine transaction and for consideration negativing the defence plea that no consideration passed and the sale-deed is not genuine. The lower appellate court, however, has further found that the plaintiff was in possession of the land in dispute till 1948 through bhag tenants and through the defendant also as a bhag tenant for the years 1948 to 1950. But while the trial Court had decreed the suit relying upon a decision of this Court that the unregistered sale-deed conveyed title in favour of the plaintiff as the case is governed by the provisions of Section 46 of the C.P Tenancy Act, the lower appellate Court however has dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the plaintiff had not been able to prove his title.
4. But what was more important for me to dispose of this appeal is the finding regarding legal necessity. The Courts below have found that the transaction was supported by legal necessity to the extent of Rs. 110/- which was incurred for paying off a previous bond dated 30-5-1930. The other item of legal necessity which has been recited in the deed is to meet the marriage expenses of the defendant himself who was a minor at the time when the deed was transacted.
5. The lower appellate Court has found that this amount of Rs. 140/- cannot be taken to be in law as legal necessity. Indeed, if it be found that the transaction was not for legal necessity for Rs. 140/- from out of total consideration of Rs. 250/-, the transaction cannot be binding as against the present defendant as the transaction is not supported by legal necessity for a substantial amount. The question, therefore, is whether the expenses incurred for the marriage of a minor can be taken to be a necessity under the Hindu Law on account of the statute of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929.
6. It is indisputable that the marriage is a valid marriage. The Child Marriage Restraint Act does not affect the validity of the marriage even thought, it may be in contravention of the provisions of the Act. In spite of the marriage being valid, it is transparent from the previsions of the Act that the marriage in contravention of the provisions of the Act is a criminal act punishable under law. The Legislature no doubt disapproves all such marriages and makes the performance of such marriage punishable in law.
7. To incur expenses for performing a ceremony which is a criminal act, in my opinion cannot be taken to be legal necessity for which a karta of the family is empowered under the Hindu law to effect an alienation. I am supported in my view by a decision of B.K Mukherji, J. (as he then was) reported in ILR (1937) 2 Cal 764, Ram Jash Agarwalla v. Chand Mandal. His Lordship observed:
“There is no rule of Hindu Law sanctioning early marriage of male children and there is no duty upon parents or guardians to many their sons of male wards before they attain majority.”
His Lordship further observed:
“The practice of early marriage of Hindu minors, may be sanctioned by usage; but it has been disapproved by the passing of the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929”.
In such circumstances, his Lordship was of the opinion that the alienation could not be supported as being for legal necessity. I, therefore, confirm the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge that the transaction was not supported by legal necessity.
8. Mr. G.K Misra, appearing on behalf of the appellant, concedes that as the transaction fails on-account of absence of legal necessity, the plaintiff is bound to be non-suited and the other questions need not be gone into. In my view the position is correct.
9. The Second appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed; but the parties are to bear their own costs throughout.
CE/D.R.R
10. Appeal dismissed.
Alert