BIRANCHI NARAYAN THAKUR Vs. BIRANCHI NARAYAN THAKUR
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Biranchi Narayan Thakur
Biranchi Narayan Thakur
Click here to view full judgement.
MOHAPATRA, J. -
(1.) THIS is the defendants Second Appeal against the confirming judgment dated 9 -1 -1948, of Shri C. C. Coari, District Judge of Cuttack, arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for setting aside a 'SEBA
SAMABPANA PATRA' (a deed of transfer in respect of Marfatdari rights) Ex. A dated 16 -11 -1940,
executed by the plaintiff himself in favour of defendants 1 and 2, who are admittedly the co -marfatdars.
Exhibit A purports to be in respect of the eight annas share of the plaintiff and the plaintiff also claims
eight annas share in the marfatdari rights in the suit.
(2.) BOTH the Courts below, after fully discussing this position, have come to a concurrent finding that the plaintiff is entitled to only two annas eight pies interest instead of eight annas. There being no
cross -appeal on behalf of the plaintiff, the position is final that if the plaintiff gets a decree, he is only
entitled to two annas eight pies.
One of the main grounds of the plaintiff to set aside the aforesaid deed of transfer was on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation on the allegation that in fact he was seriously in at the time of the execution
of the document, and was unable to understand the import of the document and was all through under the
impression that he was executing a power of attorney in favour of the defendants. Both the Courts below
have given a concurrent finding that the plaintiff has not been able to establish his case of fraud &
misrepresentation; but they have given a decree to the plaintiff on the ground that the transaction in
dispute is an alienation for consideration of the religious office and is, therefore void. The appeal was first
heard, by Das C. J., who referred it to a Division Bench.
(3.) MR . S. K. De, appearing on behalf of the defendants -appellants, has strongly argued that the transfer cannot be said to be a transfer for consideration. It is pertinent to observe here that Ex. A was executed on
16 -11 -1940, but was registered on 18 -11 -1940. On 18 -11 -1940, the plaintiff also executed another document (Ex. J) under which the plaintiff had received a sum of Rs. 50/ - from defendant 1. Indeed on a
persual of the terms of Ex. A, it is clear that it purports to be a deed for no consideration at all & prima
facie it appears to be a deed of surrender of the marfatdari rights in favour of defendants 1 and 2 for the
reason that the plaintiff on account of the straitened circumstances and incapacity was unable to carry on
the duties of the office and, therefore, executed the document by surrendering his rights for the better
management of the religious institution in favour of the co -marfatdar. But the Courts below have been
very much influenced on a consideration of the recitals of Ex. J to come to the conclusion that the
transaction is after all a transaction for consideration. It will be proper to give the recitals of Ex. J. at this
'I (the plaintiff) have executed a Sebasamarpan Patra with respect to A.2 -842 decimals of land on
16 -11 -40 and have got it registered on 18 -11 -40. However, as it was not proper for me to receive any money on the strength of that deed, and as I have been in need of money, I have received a sum of Rs.
50/ - on the strength of aforesaid document. I hereby bind myself that you will remain in possession of the properties mentioned in the deed from this date and in case of interference of possession by anybody else,
I and my heirs will be liable to repay the said sum of Rs. 50/ - with interest at the rate of Rs. 3/2/ - per cent
per mensem, together with cost of litigation.'
The recitals are perfectly clear that the plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 50/ - as consideration of the
transaction Ex. A. It clearly states that as it was not proper for him to receive any money on the strength
of Samarpan Patra he receives this money on the strength of the aforesaid deed, that is, Samarpana Patra
as he is badly in need of money. It further recites that he hereby binds himself that the defendants will be
in possession of the properties from this date and if he fails to deliver possession he will be liable to repay
the said sum of Rs. 50/ - with interest. To our mind, it is absolutely clear that both these documents form
part of the same transaction, that is, transaction of the transfer of the marfatdari rights and are two
separate documents only by way of contrivance to do away with the legal effects of the transactions being
for consideration. Our view is sufficiently strengthened by reference to para. 10 of the written statement
wherein the defendants clearly state that the plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 50/ - on the basis of the
aforesaid document (Seba Samarpana Patra) in an 'indirect way' and that the plaintiff after receipt of Rs.
50/ - made the defendants owners in respect of the properties and delivered possession thereof to the defendants. We may here further refer to the statement on oath made by the defendant himself in Court
wherein he states that the Seba Samarpana Patra (Ex. A) was registered only on receipt of Rs. 50/ - and
further in a subsequent sentence he makes it clear that the plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 50/ - as a
consideration of the Seba Samarpana Patra.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.