- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Balkrishna S. Dalwale (Dead) By Lrs. v. Vithabai C. Rathod (Dead) By Lrs. And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Smt. Ratnabai Shankar Dalwale inherited the suit property from her father and, by a Will dated 24-6-1963, bequeathed it to her two surviving daughters, Vithabai and Krishnabai. After Ratnabai’s death on 2-5-1965, the two daughters became absolute owners. Out of love and affection, they allowed their nephew Balkrishna (son of their pre-deceased sister Champabai) to occupy two rooms rent-free.
When Balkrishna refused to vacate after notice dated 21-2-1975, Vithabai and Krishnabai filed Civil Suit No. 558 of 1975 for his eviction. During the suit, an unstamped and unregistered document dated 27-10-1981—purporting to be a “partition deed”—was executed and signed by the sisters and witnessed by Balkrishna. The trial court (18-2-1987) dismissed the eviction suit, relying heavily on this document. On appeal, the first appellate court (31-12-1990) reversed the decree, holding the document inadmissible and ineffectual. The Bombay High Court dismissed Balkrishna’s second appeal on 18-10-2001. The present civil appeal challenges that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the unstamped, unregistered document dated 27-10-1981 conferred any legal right, title, or interest on the appellant.
- Whether the respondents are estopped from seeking eviction because they had earlier allowed the appellant permissive possession out of love and affection.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- Conceded that the 1981 document does not create title because it is neither a valid partition nor a gift due to lack of registration and stamp duty.
- Contended that the respondents’ act of allowing permissive occupation estops them from evicting him; therefore, the eviction suit should be dismissed.
Respondents’ Arguments
- The appellant has occupied the property for over 35 years without paying rent or maintenance while the building deteriorated.
- The respondents’ families now need the premises; the original indulgence was personal to Balkrishna, who is deceased, and cannot extend indefinitely to his descendants.
- Hence, the appeal should be dismissed and possession restored to the owners.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| UT, Chandigarh Administration v. GDSDC (1996) 7 SCC 665 | Contractual terms are enforceable only in accordance with law. | Used to support the view that even if the 1981 document were treated as a contract, it would not create enforceable rights because it was not executed in conformity with legal requirements. |
| V. Karnal Durai v. District Collector (1999) 1 SCC 475 | Similar principle on enforceability of contractual terms under law. | Reinforced the conclusion that the document cannot confer title or interest absent compliance with statutory formalities. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that, before the High Court, the appellant had limited his case exclusively to the effect of the 1981 document. Examining that document, the Court found:
- It was unstamped and unregistered, rendering it inadmissible to create or transfer any interest in immovable property.
- The appellant signed only as a witness, not as a contracting party; hence, it could not be treated as a contract binding on him or the respondents.
- Even if viewed as a contract, enforceability would fail because legal formalities were unmet, in line with the principles laid down in UT, Chandigarh Admn. and V. Karnal Durai.
- At best, the document evidenced a permissive licence granted out of love and affection, which has now lapsed since all original parties are deceased.
- Consequently, no legal right or estoppel operates against the respondents to bar eviction.
Having found no substantive legal issue surviving, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the first appellate court and the High Court.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED.
The dismissal confirms the respondents’ right to evict the appellants. Nevertheless, considering that the appellants have resided in the premises for 35 years, the Court granted them time until 31-10-2011 to vacate and ordered an undertaking to be filed within four weeks. The decision resolves the dispute between the parties without creating new precedent beyond reiterating established principles on inadmissibility of unstamped, unregistered documents.
Dr. B.S Chauhan, J.— This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18-10-2001 passed in Second Appeal No. 191 of 1991 by the High Court of Bombay by which the second appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 31-12-1990 passed in Civil Appeal No. 828 of 1987 by which it reversed the judgment and decree of the civil court dated 18-2-1987 passed in Civil Suit No. 558 of 1975 filed by the respondents, has been dismissed.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that one Smt Ratnabai Shankar Dalwale had inherited the suit property from her father. She had four daughters, two of them, namely, Champabai and Sitabai died long back i.e prior to the date of receiving the property by Smt Ratnabai Shankar Dalwale. The original owner, Ratnabai Shankar Dalwale died on 2-5-1965 and her husband Shankar Dalwale had died in 1952. Thus, at the time of her death, Smt Ratnabai Shankar Dalwale had two daughters, namely, Vithabai and Krishnabai, who acquired the suit properties by the will dated 24-6-1963, executed by Smt Ratnabai Shankar Dalwale. After the death of Smt Ratnabai Shankar Dalwale, her two daughters, Vithabai and Krishnabai (the respondent-plaintiffs) (hereinafter called “the respondents”) became the absolute owners of the properties. The will stood proved up to the High Court and attained finality.
3. The said Vithabai and Krishnabai, sisters permitted their deceased sister Champabai's son, Balkrishna (the appellant-defendant) (hereinafter called “the appellant”) to occupy two rooms free of rent out of love and affection. Subsequently, the respondents, the original owners sent a notice to the said Balkrishna, appellant to vacate the said premises on 21-2-1975. However, Balkrishna, appellant vide reply dated 10-3-1975 resisted his eviction claiming ownership of House No. 621, Ganesh Peth, Pune. The respondents, the original owners of the suit property, namely, Smt Vithabai and Smt Krishnabai filed Civil Suit No. 558 of 1975 before the Civil Court, Pune in 1975 for eviction of the said Balkrishna, appellant.
4. During the pendency of the suit, a document was prepared on 27-10-1981 purported to be a partition suit (sic deed), wherein the appellant Balkrishna had been given the accommodation which he was occupying and some additional open space for lavatory and bathroom. However, the document was duly signed by the respondent-plaintiffs and their sons also appeared as marginal witnesses. Appellant Balkrishna also signed the said document as a witness. It was an unstamped and unregistered document. The appellant Balkrishna filed the said document dated 27-10-1981 by amending the written statement on 1-4-1986 and claiming the title of that part of the property on the basis of the same.
5. The trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 18-2-1987 dismissed the suit relying very heavily on the document dated 27-10-1981, which made it clear that the appellant was not a licensee and therefore, the question of revoking the licence and further asking the court to evict him could not arise. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed Civil Appeal No. 828 of 1987 which has been allowed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 31-12-1990.
6. The first appellate court held that the purported compromise-cum-partition deed was unregistered, unstamped and not signed by the appellant as a party but merely as a witness. Thus, the said document dated 27-10-1981 did not create any right and title in favour of the appellant nor the said document was admissible in evidence. Being aggrieved, the appellant Balkrishna filed Second Appeal No. 191 of 1991 which has been dismissed vide the judgment and order dated 18-10-2001. Hence, this appeal.
7. Shri Makarand D. Adkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has fairly conceded that the appellant Balkrishna is not entitled to any title in the suit property for the reason that he could not claim any partition as he was not a co-sharer, nor the said document dated 27-10-1981 could be held to be a gift deed as it remained unstamped and unregistered. His only contention has been that if during the pendency of the suit the original respondents have, out of love and affection allowed the appellant permissible possession of the suit property, their conduct estopped them from seeking his eviction. Therefore, the judgments of the High Court as well as the first appellate court have to be reversed and the suit is liable to the dismissed.
8. On the contrary, Shri A.S Bhasme, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that the appellant had been in possession of the property for more than 35 years without making any payment. The building is in a dilapidated condition and requires repair and maintenance. The appellant has never paid any amount either as rent or for maintenance. The family members of the respondents/original plaintiffs have grown up and they need the accommodation for them. The accommodation might have been given out of love and affection to the original defendant Balkrishna. However, he is no more alive and the present appellants cannot claim any benefit of such permissible use of the suit property for an indefinite period. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Before the High Court, the appellant raised the sole question regarding the nature of the document dated 27-10-1981 and all other issues had been given up. Admittedly, the said document does not create any legal title in favour of the appellant. The appellant had signed the said document as a witness and not as a party. The said document had neither been exhibited nor was admissible in evidence. This document cannot be termed as a contract as the appellant was not a party to it. Even, otherwise, the terms of a contract can be read and enforced only in consonance with law. (See UT, Chandigarh Admn. v. GDSDC (1996) 7 SCC 665 and V. Karnal Durai v. Collector (1999) 1 SCC 475.) Thus, it would not confer any right or interest in the appellants' favour. At the most, it can be held that out of love and affection the respondents/original plaintiffs had permitted the appellant/original defendant to occupy the premises. However, as none of the original parties is alive, the said love and affection does not subsist. The present appellants being the descendants of the original defendant cannot take the benefit of such magnanimity shown by the original plaintiffs to the original defendant.
11. In view of the above, no legal issue is involved in this appeal. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the appellants had been living in the suit property for the last 35 years and it may be difficult for them to get a suitable accommodation in Pune, they may hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises on or before 31-10-2011. The appellants shall file an undertaking before this Court within a period of four weeks in this regard. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert