Summary
The Court restored a co-owner’s joint-possession decree where his attorney brother had purportedly sold the property to his own wife and minor sons without consideration. A sale requires a price paid or promised; these deeds recited payment but no payment or future-price arrangement was established. The sham deeds conveyed no title. Since the original plaints already pleaded their nullity, a later declaratory amendment did not create a limitation bar to the existing title-based claim.
Issues
- Whether the deeds executed by the attorney in favour of his wife and minor sons conveyed title without consideration.
- Whether the later addition of declaratory prayers barred relief on limitation grounds.
Provisions considered
- Section 54, Transfer of Property Act, 1882A sale requires a price paid, promised, or partly paid and partly promised. A deed without payment or provision for future payment is void as a sale. (¶¶ 15, 16)
Held
- Joint ownership had been upheld by the High Court and was not challenged by the respondents. Their assertion that the attorney brother alone had funded the original purchase could not displace that final finding. (¶ 12)
- No evidence established that the wife or minor sons had paid the recited consideration or had the asserted means to do so. The High Court’s view that the amounts were affordable did not answer the undisturbed finding of non-payment. These transactions were sham and did not affect the appellant’s undivided half share. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
- The original plaints expressly alleged that the deeds were void for want of consideration and sought protection of the appellant’s title. A void document can be ignored and its nullity proved collaterally; a separate declaration by amendment was unnecessary in these circumstances, so limitation of that added prayer did not defeat the suits. (¶¶ 13, 16, 17)
Result
Appeals allowed. The High Court judgment was set aside and the District Court’s common judgment granting joint possession restored; no costs.