Case Brief: Rani & Anr vs Santa Bala Debnath & Ors 

NAME OF THE CASE	Rani & Anr vs Santa Bala Debnath & Ors
CITATION	1971 AIR 1028  1971 SCR  (2) 603 1970 SCC  (3) 722
DATE OF THE JUDGMENT	October 14, 1970
APPELLANT	Rani & Anr
RESPONDENT	Santa Bala Debnath & Ors
BENCH/JUDGE	J.C. Shah, A.N. Grover
STATUTES INVOLVED	Pre Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Hindu Law) Indian Evidence Act, 1872Civil Procedure Code, 1908
IMPORTANT SECTION/ARTICLES	Pre Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Hindu Law), Indian Evidence Act, 1872Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Facts of the Case:

Sarala, a widowed woman, had owned a portion of the immovable property in her name. However, on March 13, 1942, through a sale deed, ge sold the given portion of land to two people- Chapabala and Banikana. 

She had two sons, named Tulsi and Govinda and two more daughters. They were her legal heirs. On that capacity, after the death of her, they claimed the property back stating that the sale deed lacked any kind of legal necessity. Therefore, they held that the deed was no more binding on the reversioners. 

According to the sake deed, it was held that an amount of Rs. 101 was paid at the point when agreement to sake was made. An amount of Rs. 899 was paid prior to the actual sale and, along with that, an amount of Rs. 500 was paid in front of the sub registrar. This was supported by various witnesses and endorsers. According to the plaintiff, an amount of Rs 500 was later taken back from Sarala, which showed that the amount for full consideration for sake was not properly fulfilled. 

The attestation of the sale deed and agreement to sale was done by Sarala's one of the sons, named Govinda. The opposite side held that he did not have the capacity to do so and at that point of time, he was a minor. However, no evidence was able to substantiate that fact of the case. The attesting witness held that Sarala beared the knowledge and capacity to understand where she was signing in the documents. 

Sarala, being the limited owner of the property, had to show that there was a legal necessity for the sale of it. It could be for marriage expenses, medical expenses, maintenance, basic needs, or for any other essential purpose. To this, the Court found that she had no other source of income. She had  no other source of assets and had no other earning member in the family. She was left with her minor children and unmarried daughters in the family. Therefore, she had some essential reason to sale the property in order to run her family and manage other basic necessities. So, the trial court considered that there was a legal necessity backing the sale of the property and thereby dismissed the suit. 

This decision was challenged before the High Court, where the High Court reversed the decision of the trial court and hence there was absence of any evidence of legal necessity behind the sale of the property. Further, the full amount as a consideration was not paid, as was an argument put up by the other side before the court. 

This decision was further challenged before the Supreme Court by filing an appeal. The apex court held that the decision of the High Court would be set aside. The court held that to prove that the sale lacked any consideration would fall on the plaintiff and it was a default on the plaintiff's part that they failed to prove it. With regards to legal necessity, the condition of Sarala Devi, accompanied by the other legal necessities that could be fulfilled by selling the property could be well constructed. Therefore, there were various reasons to be put under legal necessity for the sale of the property. Her payment for rent and other taxes, to obtain the amount to meet the marriage expenditure, and for the purpose of essential needs of the minor sons, she had sold the property, as was held by the apex court. Further, the attesting witness as well as the scribe’s evidence was required on this part and it was held to be credible by the Supreme Court. 

On this basis, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ruled in favour of the defendant. The plaintiffs suit got dismissed along with costs imposed to bear all the necessary legal and other costs that was incurred by the defendant throughout the process. 

Provisions Involved:

Various provisions are involved in this case that were put up by both parties before the court to increase the weight of the case and to substantiate its validity. The following provisions that were used here was:-

1. Hindu Succession Act, 1956
2. Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3. Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
4. Section 101-104 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
5. Order 22, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
6. Order 22, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Issues involved:

There were various issues centred on this case that was dealt by the court. The major issues are broadly mentioned as followed:

1.  Whether, in 1942, the alienation made by the defendants was valid before the court and was binding on the reversionary heirs
2. Whether the legal necessity of the defendant in selling the property could be validly proved before the court
3. Whether the appeal that was abated due to the death of one of the defendants was maintainable 
4. Whether the amount of consideration for the sale was fulfilled by the defendant party
5. Whether the lack of any specific relief affected the suit and the appeal's maintainability before the court

Arguments from the appellant’s side:

The learned counsel representing the case on behalf of the appellants, i.e., defendants 1 and 2, put forth arguments substantiating their claims before the court. The learned counsel held that sale of the property in question was made in 1942, out of necessity that arose in the family during that time. Therefore, it should be validated by the Hindu Law due to the presence of a valid interest on behalf of the family for selling the property. Anyhow, it was on the part of the plaintiff to prove that there was no essential necessity for selling the property. 

It was held, that in the original suit, relief was sought only against the widows, even though no such relief was claimed from the subsequent purchasers of the property. This made the case defective and no decree could be validly passed against the order. 

With regards to the death of the 10^th defendant, it was held by the counsel that no relief was specifically sought against the 10^th defendant, which automatically would nullify the argument of the opposing party to abate the appeal, in whole. Further, as was held by the trial court, no evidence for lack of legal necessity could be validly found in this case and from there, when the case was appealed before the High Court, the High Court lacked any legal basis to decide the case in favour of the appellant. 

Arguments from the respondent’s side:

The learned counsel representing the case on behalf of the respondent countered the arguments put forth by the appellant party. The respondent gave counter arguments to validate their stand. It was held by the learned counsel that the reason for alienation of the property lacked any legal basis to it. Under the Hindu Law, widows could only alienate the property in case of legal necessity and for the purpose of the estate. Those essentials were not met in alienation of the property in this case. 

The respondent countered the arguments of the appellant and hence that the declaration of the title was justified. Even though no relief was claimed against the subsequent alienees, the relief being sought from the widows validates the declaration of title. 

It was held that non joinder of the 10^th defendant, being an essential party to the suit, would affect the validity of the appeal and therefore the High Court was justified in delivering the said decision. 

Judgment:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decision of the High Court and upheld the decision of the trial court. The court held that the alienation of the property was justified with regards to the legal necessity. The attested witness had the evidentiary value in this case and it was justified. The death of the 10^th defendant would not affect the validity of the appeal. So, the plaintiff was directed to pay for the costs throughout the process. 

Conclusion:

After various decisions put up by the courts, the decision of the Supreme Court finally became binding over the parties. This case dealt with various nuances and resolved a number of issues that were raised in this case. Overall, this case had set a major precedent for the decisions of later cases as well.