Legal Necessity | Hindu Law | Cass Reference

সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।

Transfer of property by hindu widow

It is true that the fact of legal necessity has to be proved by the purchaser. The power of a Hindu female to alienate property are wider in respect of acts which conduced to the spiritual benefit of her deceased husband. The widow is entitled to sell the property even the whole of it if the income of the property is not sufficient to cover the expenses for such acts. In the present case the recital of the deed indicates legal necessity in different way; such as, spiritual benefits of her deceased husband, payment of debts and maintenance of the widow. In the absence of any other reliable evidences it can be easily inferred that the property was alienated by the widow of Gostha Bepari for legal necessity. The defendants, as purchaser of the property had obligations to prove legal necessity but in the instant case the plaintiffs in one hand could not establish and prove by any evidence that Promoda Sundari had no legal necessity to transfer the property in question and on the other hands the recital of the deed discloses some legal necessity which has to be construed liberally. The recital is clear evidence of the representation and if the circumstances are such as to justify a reasonable belief that an enquiry would have confirmed its truth, then when proof of actual enquiry has become impossible, the recital coupled with such circumstances would be sufficient evidence to support the deed. To hold otherwise would result in deciding that a title becomes weaker as it grows older, so that a transaction perfectly honest and legitimate when it took place would ultimately incapable of justification merely owning to the passage of time. Both the courts below concurrently observed and held that the widow of Gostha Bepari, Promoda Sundari had no other alternative for her livelihood. Being a widow it was necessary for her survival to alienate the property left by her husband. [73 DLR 251]

Legal necessity for transferring the land Instituted Title Suit No. 103 of 1997 for partition of ejmali property- It is true that in this kabala dated 02.03.1997 it has been mentioned that for performing the Shradhya ceremonies of her parents Komoda sold this land to the plaintiff. But this recital only in the document is not enough to prove that actually there was legal necessity for transferring this land by Komoda-who, admittedly, had life interest only in the land in question. Evidence is necessary to prove that actually there was legal necessity for transferring this land by Komoda. ....Abdus Sobhan Munshi =VS= Komada Daishya & others, [1 LM (AD) 410]

Hindu Law 

It appears that the trial court, on proper examination and assessment of all these evidence, rightly found that it had not been proved at all that Komoda sold the suit land to the plaintiff for performing Shradhya of her parents and that she actually performed Shradhya of her parents. We find no reason to differ with these findings and decision of the trial court. It is also not believable that Komoda sold this land to perform Shradhya of her father-who admittedly died long 50/60 years before and of her mother-who also died long 5/6 years before depriving the reversioners. So we are unable to accept this story......Abdus Sobhan Munshi =VS= Komada Daishya & others, [1 LM (AD) 410]

Mother of the plaintiffs, as holder of life interest only, could not have sold the entire land- We are of the view that the five deeds of sale executed and registered by Saraswati were not forged and fraudulent. However, since the whole transfer could not be attributed to legal necessity, and since the parties concerned evidently agreed that 4.62 acres of land out of 8.31 acres transferred by way of the five sale deeds, was to be returned to the plaintiffs, the provisions of Hindu law have not been impinged in any way.

The appeal is allowed in part and the judgement passed by the High Court Division is set aside. The sale of land in favour of the plaintiffs' sons according to their wish and in accordance with the terms of the Salish, is found to have validly reconveyed 4.62 acres of land in favour of the plaintiffs' sons. We find that the transfer of the remaining 3.69 acres of land by Saraswati to the defendants to meet her legal necessity is valid and is within the provisions of Hindu law. The defendants are hereby directed to hand over possession of 4.62 acres of land to the plaintiffs, if they have not already done so. ...Hachina Aktar Banu (Most.) =VS= Ananta Kumar Sikder, [8 LM (AD) 4]  

Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."