Introduction

• The case relates to a condition repugnant to interest created under Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA).

Facts

• The appeal involves plaintiffs seeking possession of 2 bighas of land as reversioners to Ram Charan, who faced difficulties in 1884 and executed a sale deed for his 9-pie odd share in a village.
• The dispute hinges on interpreting the sale deed, determining whether it conveyed the entire 9-pie odd share or excluded the 2 bighas in question.
• The document begins with Ram Charan declaring ownership of the 9-pie 3-kauri 2-dant zamindari share and then, with an exception for the 2 bighas, selling the entire property.
• A crucial section of the deed specifies that the excluded 2 bighas of nankar land would remain in Ram Charan's possession for life and, after his death, in the possession of his direct descendants without rent or government revenue.
• Importantly, there is a prohibition on transferring the excluded property permanently or temporarily.
• If no lineal descendants survive, the land is to become the vendee's exclusive property.
• This legal dispute centers on whether the sale was of the entire share minus the specified 2 bighas or a sale inclusive of those 2 bighas, as clarified in the sale deed's intricate provisions.

Issues Involved

• Whether the terms of the deed so executed were valid?
• Whether it is sufficient to divest the interest of heirs of Ram Charan, from the property?

Observation

• The Allahabad High Court held that the vendee acquired the 9-pie odd share, excluding the mentioned 2 bighas, but with a possibility of ownership in the future, contingent on a recognized legal provision.
• The case became complex with the death of Ram Charan, the original holder, succeeded by his childless son Mauzzam Ram in 1918.
• The contested 2 bighas, by legal default, would have become the vendees' property within a specified timeframe.
• The court said that it is clear that the two pieces of land could have stayed in the family for a very long time.
• Therefore, the court believed that this condition goes against the law. Because it goes against the law, the defendants cannot use the document they are relying on to claim ownership of the property.

Conclusion

• The court said that the condition of Ram Charan that the property will be in his family for a very long time is a condition repugnant to interest created under Section 11 of TPA.