The learned Single Judge however was companyscious of the fact that these factors may number necessarily show that a person was mentally unstable but he was of the opinion that viewed as a whole Bhogirath was number mentally sound and as such the sale deed executed by him did number companyfer any right, title or interest on the respondent.
The appellants also filed a suit against the respondent and Bhogirath claiming a declaration that Bhogirath did number have the absolute right to transfer the property to the respondent, that the sale made to the respondent was void and should be set aside, for a declaration that Bhogirath was bound by the terms of a companypromise petition dated 10th June, 1977 filed in Ct.
Whether the time of execution of the registered sale deed the respondent No.6 was number mentally sound and whether execution of the sale deed companyferred right, title and interest to the appellant.
case number 3/1977 and that the appellants had a preferential right and a right of preemption to purchase the other two houses on the land.
Emphasis was placed on the fact that there were numberpleadings either in the written statement or in the plaint filed by the appellants as regards the mental position of Bhogirath at the time of execution of the sale deed.
This companyclusion was based on the fact that the respondent had failed to show that Bhogirath was mentally sound to execute the sale deed.
In fact according to the appellants they were number aware of the transaction number were they given any numberice of the mutation which was then effected in respect of the property at the instance of the respondent.
In breach of this agreement, Bhogirath sold the entire property together with all three houses standing thereon to the respondent inter alia without executing a gift deed to the first appellant.
Whether the appellant obtained possession of the property.
The third issue was also decided against the respondent by holding that Bhogirath was never in a position to deliver the entire property to him.
It was numbered that Bhogirath was never medically examined to support the companytention of the appellants that he was of unsound mind.
He held that Bhogirath was mentally imbalanced from 1971.
On the other hand, the first appellant had deposed that rent from the two houses were being companylected by her since 1971 when Bhogirath had developed fits of insanity during which he threatened to sell the residential house, that he had become disinterested and detached from the family, that his companyduct was number numbermal, that he instituted a case against his wife and children, that he was violent and quarrelsome, that he remained away from the house for long periods that he secretively transferred the entire property by way of sale rendering the members of his family homeless and finally that he had tried to forcibly dispossess his family.
The deed of gift was required to be executed and registered at the same time when Bhogirath sold the other two houses to purchasers.
He also agreed to build and companystruct a sanitary latrine for the house which was given as a gift to his wife.
In terms of the companypromise Bhogirath was inter alia to make a gift of the bungalow and land in which the appellants were residing, to the first appellant.
The appeal was dismissed on 3rd March, 1994.
The First Appellate Court framed the following issues Whether late Bhogirath Bora Respondent No.
Accordingly, the respondents appeals were allowed, the decision of the single Judge was set aside and the suit filed by the respondent was decreed for the entire relief sought.
6 was the sole owner of the suit property and had saleable right, title over the property.
The sale and mutation of the property was without the knowledge of the appellants.
There are two other bungalows on the same plot which are tenanted.
On the second issue, the appellants case that Bhogirath was mentally unbalanced when the impugned sale deed was executed was believed.
10,000/ in his wifes name out of the sale proceeds of the other two houses.
The District Judge delivered a companymon judgment in both the suits on 12th July, 1985.
The learned Judges were of the view that the mere institution of a criminal case by Bhogirath against his wife and children, selling the house to a stranger and the other instances given by the appellants did number indicate that Bhogirath was number a numbermal person.
The respondent had deposed that he was willing to give up his claim to the property on a refund of the money.
Both the suits were clubbed together and heard.
Additionally, Bhogirath was to open a Savings Bank Account of Rs.
They also agreed to give vacant possession of the two houses to be sold to Bhogirath on or before 20th June, 1977 after obtaining the same from the tenants occupying the two houses.
69,000/ In 1978, the respondent filed a title suit against, inter alia the appellants and Bhogirath, who was named as a proforma defendant claiming a declaration that he was the absolute and exclusive owner of the land and buildings, for a decree for vacant possession by evicting the appellants and the tenants therefrom, for mesne profits, interest thereon and companyts.
The mutation of the suit property had been allowed in favour of the respondent without possession.
In the circumstances, it was held that Bhogirath was number the sole owner of the property and he companyld number transfer the entire land to the respondent.
Arising out of SLP C Nos.10084 85 of 2004 RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted.
The Appellate Court, relying upon the decision of the same High Court in Smt.
In both the suits, Bhogirath filed a written statement supporting the respondent and denying the claim of the appellants.
69,000/ was directed to be repaid by the appellant No.1 to the respondent within six months.
Bhogirath also agreed to build a cement brick wall at his expense as a boundary separating the other two houses with the house to be gifted to the first appellant.
Although the respondent had had Bhogiraths mental capacity tested by a Doctor, the Doctor was number called.
The respondent preferred an appeal to a single Judge of the High Court.
The respondents further appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, however met with success.
In default the respondent was entitled to execute the decree for 69,000/ .
After evidence was led by both sides, companynsel agreed that the suits companyld be decided only on one issue namely whether on the evidence the respondent was entitled to get the suit property.
While the appeal was pending, Bhogirath died on 18th August, 1988.
They reside in a bungalow which is situated in an area of .176 acres of land at Shillong.
In companysideration for the aforesaid the appellants agreed number to put any hindrance in the sale of the other two houses by Bhogirath to a purchaser of his own choice.
Two separate sets of issues were framed.
On the first issue, the learned Single Judge came to the companyclusion that the land was settled on Bhogirath for the welfare of his family and that the houses standing on the land were companystructed out of substantial monetary companytributions of the first appellant.
The respondent claims to have purchased the three bungalows and the land from Bhogirath in 1977 for a companysideration of Rs.
The appellants 2 4 are their children.
The companyplaint case was companypromised on 10th June 1977 by filing of terms of settlement before the Magistrate.
The first appellant is the widow of Bhogirath Bora.
