Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1977 DIGILAW 77 (MP)

Nimabai v. Dhurai

1977-03-10

K.K.DUBE

body1977
Short Note : This second appeal is by the plaintiff for a declaration and possession of land bearing Khasra No. 227, area 8.15 acres and 228, area 1.22 acres (the new Khasra number being 195) situated in village Konrasa. In effect, the appellant seeks to challenge the transfer of land to the respondents by her mother Ranibahu. Held : The finding that Ranibahu was always considered as the owner and was in possession of the suit land undoubtedly goes against her. Both the Court below came to the conclusion that some land was retained by Ranibahu for her maintenance and it was this disputed land that was in her possession. She was cultivating this land and was also granted a Patta at the time of Chackbandi. This was without any objection from the plaintiff. At one stage, the plaintiff wanted to have her name mutated in respect of the land but that was abandoned. Nimabai had by her conduct made the defendants and others to believe that Ranibahu was the owner of the land. The finding of both the Courts is clear on this point and the finding is a finding of fact which is conclusive in second appeal. The defendants, it could be clear from the record, made reasonable enquiries as to the power of the transferor to sell the land. They have acted in good faith and paid valuable consideration. The sale cannot, therefore, be avoided in view of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. It has been found by both the Courts below that the disputed land had all along been in possession of Ranibahu and this she had kept for her maintenance. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the plaintiff gave her this six acres of land because the six acres kept by her after the death of her husband vested in the State. It would appear that the land having been held by her for the purposes of maintenance she acquired an absolute title to it on coming into force of Hindu Succession Act. By virtue of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, she became the full owner of the land and was competent to sell it to the defendants. Appeal dismissed.