1918 (12) TMI 4 - Other - Indian Laws

Reversionary heir not estopped from challenging deed deemed gift, not for consideration. Appeal allowed.

The High Court held that the plaintiff, a reversionary heir, was not estopped from challenging the deed executed by Marakammal in favor of Ramasami ... Power of Hindu widow to alienate - surrender versus partial alienation - necessity and consent as validation of alienation - consent of reversioners as evidential and presumptive, not operative per se - deed of gift versus alienation for consideration - ratification and estoppel in respect of voidable alienationsDeed of gift versus alienation for consideration - surrender versus partial alienation - Character and legal effect of the deed executed by Marakammal in favour of Ramasami Gounden. - HELD THAT: - All courts below (except one judge on a different view) and their Lordships treat the instrument as a deed of gift and not a total surrender of the widow's interest. Because it did not operate as a bona fide surrender of the widow's entire interest in the whole estate it could not receive effect as a surrender. Being a gift (and not an alienation for value made out as necessity), the deed taken by itself cannot be upheld as a valid alienation for necessity. The Board therefore holds that the deed, standing alone, does not transfer the title relied on by the respondent. [Paras 16, 17]The deed is a deed of gift and, not being a total surrender or an alienation for proved necessity, cannot, by itself, be sustained as a valid transfer.Power of Hindu widow to alienate - surrender versus partial alienation - necessity and consent as validation of alienation - consent of reversioners as evidential and presumptive, not operative per se - Legal principles governing a Hindu widow's power to surrender or alienate her deceased husband's estate and the effect of consent of reversioners. - HELD THAT: - The Board summarises the law: (1) A widow may effect a bona fide surrender of her whole interest in the whole estate in favour of the nearest reversioner(s), in which event the rule of necessity is not engaged; such surrender must be genuine and not a device. (2) Partial surrender is inconsistent with the doctrine of surrender because effacement of the widow must be complete; a widow cannot be partly effaced. (3) Where alienation (of whole or part) is relied on as justified by necessity, necessity must be proved aliunde, or the alienee must show honest belief after proper inquiry; mere recital is insufficient. (4) The consent of reversioners does not operate proprio vigore to validate an alienation but is evidential - it affords a presumption that the transaction was fair and proper if given by those whose concurrence would reasonably be expected to dispute it; it does not convert a voidable or unlawful alienation into a valid one per se. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 15]The law distinguishes surrender (which must be total) from alienation for necessity; consent of reversioners supplies evidential presumptions but does not of itself validate a partial alienation.Ratification and estoppel in respect of voidable alienations - Whether the plaintiff was estopped or had ratified the deed by purchasing parcels and by taking the mortgage such that he was barred from challenging the deed. - HELD THAT: - Their Lordships reject the contention that the plaintiff is estopped. There is no estoppel by record or by deed, and the plaintiff did not by any declaration, act or omission intentionally cause the respondents to believe the deed valid and to act on that belief in the sense required by Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. The equitable doctrine of ratification (or election) in voidable contracts requires an affirmative act amounting to an election to treat the deed as good; the facts here (purchase of small plots and taking a mortgage from parties who held both succession and deed-derived shares) do not demonstrate such an election. The mortgage secured shares that the mortgagors held in virtue both of succession and of the deed, and the plaintiff, not then being finally ascertained as reversioner, was entitled to take the security offered without thereby abandoning his right to challenge the deed when his title matured. [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21]The plaintiff was neither estopped nor deemed to have ratified the deed by his purchase and by taking the mortgage; he remained entitled to challenge the deed.Final Conclusion: Appeal allowed; the decree of the District Judge restored in favour of the appellant and costs awarded to the appellant in the courts below and before this Board. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the deed executed by Marakammal.2. Estoppel or ratification by the plaintiff.3. Power of a Hindu widow over her deceased husband's estate.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the deed executed by Marakammal:The plaintiff, as a reversionary heir, contested the validity of the deed executed by Marakammal in favor of Ramasami Gounden. The deed was claimed to be a conveyance of parts of the estate, including the disputed part of the Konganapuram mitta. The grounds for resistance were that the deed was valid and carried the property in question, and alternatively, that the plaintiff had either ratified the deed or was estopped from denying its validity. The High Court judges differed in opinion, with Miller J. agreeing with the District Judge that the deed was invalid, while Sadasiva Aiyar J. considered it valid, asserting that 'a partial alienation by a widow to the nearest reversioner is valid in law when he is a male, and gives him full ownership right in the alienated property.' The Full Bench eventually held that the plaintiff was estopped from denying the deed's validity due to the mortgage transaction.2. Estoppel or ratification by the plaintiff:The concept of estoppel was analyzed under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that a person cannot deny the truth of a thing if they have intentionally caused another to believe it and act on that belief. The learned judges of the Appeal Court rested their opinion on Bajranji Singh's Case, but the Board found no room for estoppel, as the plaintiff never consented to the deed, nor was his claim traced through Ramasami. The alternative view of ratification was also considered, where it was noted that an alienation by a widow is voidable, not void, and a reversioner must act to challenge it when the right of action is open and known. The plaintiff had raised proceedings immediately after his title was confirmed, and his actions did not amount to an election to hold the deed good.3. Power of a Hindu widow over her deceased husband's estate:The judgment delved into the power of a Hindu widow over her deceased husband's estate, distinguishing between the power of surrender or renunciation and the power of alienation for specific purposes. It was established that a widow could renounce in favor of the nearest reversioner, effectively accelerating the estate of the heir by conveying absolutely and destroying her life estate. However, a partial surrender was not valid, as the principle required the effacement of the widow, which could not be partial. The power of alienation for religious or charitable purposes, or necessity, was also discussed, with the necessity requiring proof beyond mere recital in the deed. The consent of reversionary heirs could fortify an alienation, but only as presumptive proof of its legitimacy, not as an independent validating force.Conclusion:The Board concluded that the deed executed by Marakammal was not a total conveyance of her property and was a deed of gift, not for consideration. Therefore, it could not stand as evidence of alienation for value for purposes of necessity. The plaintiff was not estopped from challenging the deed, and his actions did not constitute ratification. The appeal was allowed, and the decree of the District Judge was restored, with costs awarded to the appellant.