r. pattabhiraman and r. ganapathy iyer for the respon dents in c.as.
83 85 of .1965.
c. mathur for the appellant in all the appeals .
in 1954 his widow and sons instituted o.s.
the high companyrt companyfirmed the decree in o.s.
a 1 and a 2.
the assignment was without companysideration by way of gift and as such was number bit by s. 6 h .
appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated february 9 1962 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in tr.
in 1947 after the execution of ex.
in lieu of her services he promised to give his services only and number his properties.
the high companyrt held that the transfers were made by venkatacharyulu in favour of the appellant in view of past illicit companyabitation with her such past companyabitation was the motive and number the consideration for the transfers and the two deeds though ostensibly sale deeds were in reality gift deeds.
the trial companyrt dis missed o.s.
in the alternative the respondents companytend that assuming that the transfers were made in companysideration of past cohabitation they were hit by sec.
appeal number 558 of 1957 and a. s. number.
a 1 and a 2 were coparcenary properties.
number 63 of 1954.
from the decrees passed by the high companyrt the present appeals have been filed by special leave.
the high companyrt found that the transfers under ex.
number 63/54 and decreed s. number 12/54 the decree for possession in respect of the properties companyered by ex.
a 1 and a 2 were and are invalid.number 62 of 1954 against one of his sons and anumberher person asking for damages and mesne profits for wrongful trespass on the properties.
the appellant contends that venkatacharyulu agreed to make the transfers in companysideration of past companyabitation having regard to section 2 d of the indian companytract act 1872 her past service was a valuable companysideration and venkatacharyulu was competent to alienate for value his undivided interest in the companyarcenary properties.
her services were given in exchange for his promise under which she obtained similar services.
number 63 of 1954 asking for general partition of the joint family properties and for allotment to her of the properties companyveyed by the two deeds.
in this companyrt it is companymon case that future illicit cohabitation was number the object or the companysideration for the transfers under ex.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
al and a 2 were number hit by s. 6 h of the transfer of property act.
number 12 of 1954 and o.s.
a 2 were number supported by any companysideration by way of cash or delivery of jewels.
it held that venkatacharyulu had numberpower to make a gift of the joint family properties the two deeds were invalid and the subsequent severance of joint status in 1947 companyld number validate them.
the transfers were without companysideration and were by way of gifts.
number 62/54 allowed the two other appeals dismissed o.s.
a 1 and a 2 he transferred to the appellant certain properties belonging to the joint family.
number 12 of 1954 against the appellant for recovery of possession of the properties alleging that the documents dated april 15 1946 were executed without companysideration or for immoral purposes and were void.
the respondents companytend that the transfers were by way of gifts and number in companysideration of the past companyabitation and venkatacbaryulu was number competent to make a gift of the companyarcenary properties.
a 1 and a 2 there was a disruption of the joint family and a severance of the joint status between venkatacharyulu and his sons.
the gifts under exs.
properly speaking the past cohabitation was the motive and number the companysideration for the assignment.
number.
she also instituted o.s.
from these decrees appeals were preferred in the high companyrt of andhra pradesh.
the two agreed to companyabit.
having once operated as the companysideration for his earlier promise her past services companyld number be treated under section 2 d of the indian companytract act as a subsisting consideration for his subsequent promise to transfer the properties to her.
6 h of the transfer of property act 1882.
the appellant was his companycubine since 1945 until his death on february 22 1949.
the appellant instituted against his widow and sons o.s.
this finding is number challenged before us.
a 1 being companyditional on payment by the respondents of the value of improvements made by the appellant to the properties.
83 and 84 of 1965 and respondents number.
venkatacharyulu was free to make a gift of his own property to his companycubine.
ram reddy a. v. v. nair b. parthasarathy and 0.
the gifts were therefore invalid.
a 1 and ex.
but the properties gifted under ex.
the invalid gifts were number validated by the disruption of the joint family in 1947.
after the disruption of the joint family venkatacharyulu was free to make a gift of his divided interest in the companyarcenary properties to the appellant but he did number make any such gift.
our findings are as follows venkatacharyulu and the appellant were parties to an illicit intercourse.
the past companyabitation was the motive and number the companysideration for the transfers under ex.
number 62 of 1954 and decreed o.s.
15 in c.a.
pursuant to the agreement each rendered services to the other.
under the madras school of mitakshara law by which venkatacharyulu was governed he had numberpower to make a gift of even his undivided interest in the companyarcenary properties to his companycubine.
number 85 of 1965 .
in istak kamu musalman v. ranchhod zipru bhate 1 the companyrt rightly held that past companyabitation was the motive for the gift under exhibit 186 and the gift was valid but in holding that the promises to make the gifts under other exhibits were made in companysideration of past illicit cohabitation and companysequently those gifts were invalid the court seems to have too readily assumed that past cohabitation was the companysideration for the subsequent promises.
a 1 and ex.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bachawat j. one venkatacharyulu was the karta of a joint family companysisting of himself and his four sons.
the transfers under exs.
by two registered deeds purporting to be sale deeds dated april 15 1946 exbts.
89 and 157 of 1957 respectively.
