MUHAMMAD GHAUS vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND Another
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a second appeal regarding a suit for declaration. The suit concerned the validity of a registered sale deed of ancestral land, which the plaintiff, a reversioner, claimed was void due to lack of consideration and legal necessity, asserting that the vendor was governed by custom. The lower courts concurrently held that the property was ancestral, the parties were governed by custom, the sale lacked legal necessity, and only partial consideration was proven. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their findings regarding legal necessity and the sufficiency of consideration, given the vendor's physical and mental capacity. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the vendor's physical and mental infirmity were sound. The Court established that when a vendor is proven to be a physical wreck with limited mental capacity, the burden of proof regarding the actual receipt of consideration and the prudence of the transaction—specifically regarding legal necessity—is heightened, and mere endorsement by a Sub-Registrar does not automatically validate the transaction.
- Does the endorsement of a Sub-Registrar on a sale deed conclusively prove the passing of consideration when the vendor's mental and physical capacity is in question?
- Can a sale of ancestral land by a person governed by custom be set aside if the vendor is found to be a physical wreck and the transaction lacks legal necessity?
- Is the sale of ancestral land for the purpose of purchasing distant property considered an act of good management when the vendor is physically infirm?
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing a second appeal.
2. This second appeal arose out of a suit filed for a declaration that the sale in favour of the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 herein of 21 kanals and 13 marlas of land situated in village Sujowali, Tehsil Pasrur, by a registered sale deed dated the 8th of January 1958, was void, as it was without any consideration and without legal necessity and the vendor was governed by custom The suit was filed by the brother of the vendor who claimed to by his reversioner.
3. All the Courts below have found that the property was ancestral property qua the respondent herein and his brother, that they were governed by custom, that the sale was without legal necessity, and that payment of consideration had been proved only to the extent of Rs.1,451 as against the consideration of Rs. 4,000 mentioned in the deed.
4. The vendee has now come up for special leave to appeal, and it is contended on his behalf that the finding as to the absence of legal necessity is based on non-consideration of material evidence relating to the fact that the land sold had been ravished by floods and that the place at which the vendor wished to purchase lands, in substitution of the lands sold, out of the consideration money was the place of residence of his own sister.
5. The petitioner also complains that the finding with regard to the non-payment of the full consideration is clearly against the weight of evidence, as the Courts below had no reason to dis-- believe the endorsement on the back of the deed made by the Sub-Registrar as to the passing of the consideration in his presence.
6. We are not impressed by any one of these contentions, because, on the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the vendor was "a complete physical wreck and his naivety bordered on stupidity", some more evidence was necessary to establish that the consideration which passed before the Sub-Registrar was actually received by the vendor.
7. This factor has also a material bearing on the question of legal necessity. If such was the physical condition of the vendor, then it would certainly not have been an act of good management on his part to sell these lands for purchasing lands at another place nearly 200 miles away. His physical infirmity would not have permitted him to look after lands at such distant places. Apart from the land sold, the vendor had still a considerable area left in the village of Sujowali where he ordinarily resides. It is also not without significance that the petitioner had on an earlier occasion purchased certain lands from the same vendor and that, sale too was set aside after civil litigation.
8. This petition is accordingly dismissed.