# Chaifr:tulla Rama• chandrayya v. Boppana Satyanarayana

- **Citation:** [1964] 3 S.C.R. 985
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 33! of 1961
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chaifr-tulla-rama-chandrayya-v-boppana-satyanarayana-3029
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

•
•
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
985
can be made under s. 479A of the Code of Criminal
1963
Procedure.
Raghubir P•asai
We are therefore of opinion thats. 479A has
no application to prosecution for offences other than
an offence under s. 193 and cognate sections in
Chapter XI and that as regards other offences ss. 4 76,
4 77, 4 78 and 4 79 continue to apply even after the
enactment of s. 4 79A.
Whether the High Court is right or wrong in
its view that the appellant appeared prirna f aoie
to have committed offences
under s. 467
and
s. 467/l20B of the Indian Penal Code has not been
argued before us and we express no opinion either
way on that matter.
The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed .
CHALi !\GULLA RAMACHANDRAYY A
v.
BOPPANA SATYANARAYANA & OTHERS
DudhewaUa
••
Clumanlal Mehra
Dos G.pta/,
1963
MaJ10
- '
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO
,
'
and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.)
Part performance-Transfer of intere•t in the property
under contract-Absence of registered instrument-Indian statutory requirement-Engli•h Equitable Doctrine-Applic,1bilityTransfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act 4 of 1882), s. 5JA.
The plaintiffs brought a suit for partition, two of them
claimed to be the reversioners of Chandrappa and the third a
purchaser of the interest of the reversioners, defendants 4, 5
and 7. They were thus entitled to a 5/6th share of the properties while the 6th defendant was entitled as a reversioner of
Chandrappa to the remaining I /6th share. The property was
in the possession of the three sons of Nagayya, the first three
1963
Chaifr:tulla Rama•
chandrayya
v.
Boppana Satyanarayana
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
defendants, who denied these properties ever belonged to
-chandrappa and also that the plaintiff's I and 2 or defendants
4 to 7 were his reversioners. 1'he main defence was that even
if the properties belonged to
Chandrappa, the defendants'
father Nagayya became entitled to these as Chandrappa's
illatom son-in·law, on the basis that Chandrappa _had brought
Nagayya into his family under an arrangement that the latter
·would mafry his wife's sister's daughter Mangamma and inherit the entire property after Chandrappa's death.
The
trial court diSmissed the suit. On appeal the High Court set
aside the order and decreed the suit. On certificate, the only
contention raised by the appellant in this court was that even
though specific performance had not been sought, the contract
itself would have the effect of transferring interest in the
property to Nagayya on Chandrappa's death.
Held that after enactment of s. 53A in the Transfer of
Property Act, the only· case in which the English doctrine of
equity of part pe1 formance could be applied in India is where
the requirements of s. 53A are satisfied. In the instant case,
531\ has no application. It must be held therefore that the
conniderations of equity cannot confer on Nagayya or his heirs
any title in the lands which under the statute could b~ conferred only by a registered instrument. The appeal, therefore,
must be dismissed.
Challa Papi Reddi v. Challa Koti Reddi, (1872) 7 Mad.
H. C:. R. 25; Bha'a Nahana v. Parbhu Hari, (1677 2 I.L.R.
Born. 67; Asit~ Mahon Ghosh Moulikv. Mohan Ghos~ Mouli/c,
(1916) 20 C.W.N. 901; Venkayyamma Rao v, Appa Rao, (1916)
L. R. 43 I. A. 138; Ariff v. Jadunath Majumdar,
(1930)
I. L. R. 58 Cal. 1235, held inapplicable.
Arijj v. Jadunath Majunmdar, ( 1931) L. R. 58 I.A. 91,
relied on.

## Text

•
•
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
985
can be made under s. 479A of the Code of Criminal
1963
Procedure.
Raghubir P•asai
We are therefore of opinion thats. 479A has
no application to prosecution for offences other than
an offence under s. 193 and cognate sections in
Chapter XI and that as regards other offences ss. 4 76,
4 77, 4 78 and 4 79 continue to apply even after the
enactment of s. 4 79A.
Whether the High Court is right or wrong in
its view that the appellant appeared prirna f aoie
to have committed offences
under s. 467
and
s. 467/l20B of the Indian Penal Code has not been
argued before us and we express no opinion either
way on that matter.
The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed .
CHALi !\GULLA RAMACHANDRAYY A
v.
BOPPANA SATYANARAYANA & OTHERS
DudhewaUa
••
Clumanlal Mehra
Dos G.pta/,
1963
MaJ10
- '
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO
,
'
and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.)
Part performance-Transfer of intere•t in the property
under contract-Absence of registered instrument-Indian statutory requirement-Engli•h Equitable Doctrine-Applic,1bilityTransfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act 4 of 1882), s. 5JA.
The plaintiffs brought a suit for partition, two of them
claimed to be the reversioners of Chandrappa and the third a
purchaser of the interest of the reversioners, defendants 4, 5
and 7. They were thus entitled to a 5/6th share of the properties while the 6th defendant was entitled as a reversioner of
Chandrappa to the remaining I /6th share. The property was
in the possession of the three sons of Nagayya, the first three
1963
Chaifr:tulla Rama•
chandrayya
v.
Boppana Satyanarayana
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
defendants, who denied these properties ever belonged to
-chandrappa and also that the plaintiff's I and 2 or defendants
4 to 7 were his reversioners. 1'he main defence was that even
if the properties belonged to
Chandrappa, the defendants'
father Nagayya became entitled to these as Chandrappa's
illatom son-in·law, on the basis that Chandrappa _had brought
Nagayya into his family under an arrangement that the latter
·would mafry his wife's sister's daughter Mangamma and inherit the entire property after Chandrappa's death.
The
trial court diSmissed the suit. On appeal the High Court set
aside the order and decreed the suit. On certificate, the only
contention raised by the appellant in this court was that even
though specific performance had not been sought, the contract
itself would have the effect of transferring interest in the
property to Nagayya on Chandrappa's death.
Held that after enactment of s. 53A in the Transfer of
Property Act, the only· case in which the English doctrine of
equity of part pe1 formance could be applied in India is where
the requirements of s. 53A are satisfied. In the instant case,
531\ has no application. It must be held therefore that the
conniderations of equity cannot confer on Nagayya or his heirs
any title in the lands which under the statute could b~ conferred only by a registered instrument. The appeal, therefore,
must be dismissed.
Challa Papi Reddi v. Challa Koti Reddi, (1872) 7 Mad.
H. C:. R. 25; Bha'a Nahana v. Parbhu Hari, (1677 2 I.L.R.
Born. 67; Asit~ Mahon Ghosh Moulikv. Mohan Ghos~ Mouli/c,
(1916) 20 C.W.N. 901; Venkayyamma Rao v, Appa Rao, (1916)
L. R. 43 I. A. 138; Ariff v. Jadunath Majumdar,
(1930)
I. L. R. 58 Cal. 1235, held inapplicable.
Arijj v. Jadunath Majunmdar, ( 1931) L. R. 58 I.A. 91,
relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 33! of 1961.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated
March 29, 1956, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
Appeal Suit No. 182 of 1950.
B. Manavala Chowdhry and B. K. B. Naidu,
for the appellants.
Narasiah Chowdhry and R. Gopalakrishnan,
for Respondents Nos. I, 2 and 8.
..
,• ,
A.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
987
1963. May 10. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
DAS GUPTA ].-This
appeal brought on a
certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh is against a decision of that Court reversing
.a
decree granted
by
the Subordinate Judge,
Masulipatnam, dismissing a suit for partition.
'
Of the three plaintiffs who brought the suit,
two claimed to be the reversioners of Boppauna
Chandrappa, to whom
we
shall
refer to as
Chandrappa, and the third a purchaser of the interest
of some of the reversioners, viz., defendants 4, 5 and
7.
According to the plaint the three plaintiffs were
thus entitled to a 5/6th share of the properties while
the 6th defendant was entitled as a reversioner of
,Chandrappa to the remaining l/6th share. The
property was however in the actual possession of the
three sons of Nagayya who were impleaded as the
first three· defendants.
In contesting the suit these defendants denied
that these properties hacj ever belonged to Chandra·
ppa and further that the plaintiffs l and 2 or
the defondants 4, 5, ti and 7 were his reversioners.
The main defence however was that even if the pro·
perties did belong to Chanprappa, the defendant's
- father Nagayya became entitled to these as Chandrappa's illatom son·in·law.
The' basis of this
plea of illatom son-in-lawship was said to
be
that Chandrappa had brought N agayya into his
family under an arrangement that the latter would
marry his wife's sister's daughter Mangamma and
help him in cultivation and management of the pro·
, perti~s, in consid.eration of which Nagayya would
mhent the entire property after Chandrappa's
death.
,
The Trial Court held that all the suit properties
.. except a small portion did belong to Chandrappa
1963
Chaliagulla Ram.l·
chandro,,vya
y,
BoppantJ Satva·
naray•n•
Das Gupta J,
1963
Chaliagu//a Rama•
chand1ayya
..
Boppana Sa{.)'a·
nara,ana
Das Gupta J.
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964] VOL/
and the plaintiffs would be entitled to 5/6th share of
Chandrappa 's properties and the 6th defendant to
the
remaiuing
I/6th share, on the death
of
Chandrappa's widow Ramamma.
He
however
accepted the defence case that Nagayya had become
entitled to the property on Chandrappa's death as
Chandrappa's illatom son-in-law and
accordingly~
dismissed the suit.
On appeal, the High Court held that the cus!
tom by which an illatom son-in-law inherited property
could not be extended to a case where the marriage
took place not with the daughter of the owner of the
property but with some other relation of his. The
High Court also rejected an alternative plea that
appears to have been raised before it that N agayya
became entitled to the property on the
basi~ of a
contract between him and Chandrappa. In this
view of the law, the High Court set aside the order
passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit.
•
It is no longer disputed before us that the
rights of an illatom son·in-law cannot be claimed
by a person who under a promise from the owner of
the property that he would inherit the property
marries not the daughter but some other relation of
the owner of the property. The alternative contention
which was raised before the High Court has however, •
been repeated before us, It has been urgedthat'
there was a good and valid contract between Chand·
rappa and Nagayya, that in consideration of Nagayya
marrying Mangamma and looking after Chandrappa's
property, Chandrappa'would make him his heir and
that the consequence of this contract was that Nagayya
became Chandrappa's heir.
The question here is not
whether on Chandrappa's death Nagayya could have .-
obtained specific performance of the alleged contract.
For, assuming that there was a contract as alleged
and that it was a valid contract, enforceable at law
and also such of which specific performance could -..
-
,
3 S.C.R.
SUPR.El\IE COURT REPORTS
989
have been obtained by proper proceedings in courts,
the appellants' rights would be to seek such specific
performance. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that even though specific performance has not
been sought or given the contract itself would have
the effect of transferring interest in the property to
'Nagayya on Chandrappa's death.
,
In support of this contention the learned
Counsel relied on three decisions of High Courts in
-
India and also a decision of the Privy Council.
The first decision in point of time is the case of
Ohalla Papi Reddi v. Ohalla Kati Reddi (').
The
facts there were that the defendant's father who was
selected by Musalireddi, in pursuance of a special
custom, as a son-in-law who should take his property
as if he was a son entered into possession of the pro-
• perty on Musalireddi's death. He then associated
with himself the plaintiff in the management of his
property on promise of a sha:e: T?e plaintiff continued thus for many years, a1dmg 1n the management and improvement of the property, until a short
time before the suit was brought, the first defendant
turned the plaintiff out of doors and refused to give
him the promised share. The High Court of Madras
held that the agreement by the first defendant's
father was to the effect that the plaintiff was being
- admitted to the rights of a co-sharer and further,
-
as there was a complete adoption or ratification of
the father's contract by the first defendant he ought
to be held to it and the plaintiff was therefore a
co-sharer in the property.
It has to be mentioned that this case was
decided long before the Transfer of Property Act,
, 1882 was enacted and the question whether a written
document was necessary for transfer did not come up
for consideration.
.
,
In Bhalla Nahana v. Prabhu Hari ('),which was
the next case cited, what happened was that one Gosai
1963
Chaliagu 1la Ram•·
ch{,jndrayya
••
Boppana Saty ..
/Jas Gyta J.
•
(I) (1872) 7 Mad, H,C.l{, 25,
(2) (1877) 21.L.R. Bom.67,
1963
C aliagulla Rcmach2nd1ayya
v.
Bop~ana Sa!)'a·
narayana
Das Gupta J,
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
Ramji induced the parents of the defendant Prabhu
Hari to give him in adoption by an express promise
to settle his property upon the boy but died before
such settlement could. be executed.
Nearly 30 years
after his death Ramji's widow Bhani gave effect to
her husband"s undertaking by executing a deed of ·
gift of his property in her hands in favour of Prablfu
Hari.
The reversioner to Gosai Ramji's estate con·
tested in a suit brought by him, the validity of tltis
alienation. In holdin~ that the alienation was valid, ,.
the High Court of Bombay pointed out that the per·
formance of a hnsband's contracts was among the
proper and necessary purposes spec-ified by Hindu
jurists under which a widow could aiienate property
and said further that the equity to compel the heir
and legal respresentative of the adoptive father
specifically to perform his contracts survived and the
property in the hands of his widow was bound by
that contract. Whether Prabhu Hari would have
been entitled to the property everi in the absence of
~~~e. deed of gift di~ot fall for consideration in that
It also deserves to be mentioned that this case
was also decided several years before the Transfer of
Property Act came into force.
In Asita Mohan Ghosh Moulik v. Mohan Gho~hM oulik (1), one of the questions in dispute
was ..
whether the adopted son could take a11 equal share
with the son.
Answering the question in the affirmative, the High Court of Calcutta after deciding that
under the Hindu Law the adopted son was entitled
to an equal share, also rderred to an Ikrarnama
whick had been executed by the adoptive father, and
holding that the Ikrarnama was valid and operative;
said that even apart from the law, the adopted son
would be so entitled. It is difficult to see how this
can be of any assistance m solving our present
~
problem.
•
(I) (1916) 20 c.w.N. so1.
- •.
•
-
·<
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
991
Lastly, the learned Counsel relied on the
decision of the Privy Council in Malraju Lakhmi
Venkayyamma v. Ventaka Narasimha Appa Rao (1).
The main qllestion in controversy in that case was
whe~her there was a completed contract by which
the Rani, the former owner of the property had
agreed that the possession of the property would be
given to her niece Venkayyamma Kao immediately
upon the expiry of her life interest.
The Privy
Council held that there was such completed contract
and directed the Receiver to deliver possession "upon
the terms of the contract now affirmed".
It may be mentioned that this decision in
Venkayyamma
Rao's
Gase (1), was among the
authorities on which the Calclltta High Court relied
in Arif! v. Jadunath Majumdar ('). The High Court
held that the result of equitable principles which
had been applied in many cases in England and
were also applied by the Privy Council in Venkayyamma Rao' Case was that the defendant had acquired
the rights of a permanent tenant. When this very
case went up to the Privy Council in appeal (1), the
High Courc's decision was reversed.
The Privy
Council pointed out that the dicta in Veukayyamma
Rao's Case did not mean "that equity can override
the provisions of a statute and (where no registered
document exists and no registrable document Cdn be
procured) confer upon a person a right which the
statute enacts, shall be conferred only by a registered
instrument".
This decision of the Privy Council in Ariff v.
Jadunath Majumdar ('),was given in January 11!31.
Nearly two years before that s. 53A had been enacted
in the Transfer of Property Act introducing in a
limited form the doctrine of equity of part performance. There can, in our opinion, be no doubt that
after s. 53A was enacted the only case in which the
English doctrine of equity of part performance could
(1) (1916) L. R. 43 I.A. 138.
(2)
(1930) I. L,R, 56 Cal. 1235.
(3)
(1931) L. R. 58 I. A. 91.
1953
Gha/iagulla. Ramachandroyya
..
Btppina Sa{Va·
na1oyana
Das 1 upta J.
1963
Chalit1gulia Ramachandr iyya
v.
Bopp4na Satyanarayana
JJas Gupta J,
·/963
May IOJ
992
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
be applied in India is where the requirements of 53A
are satisfied.
Quite clearly, s. 53A does not apply
to the facts of the present case. It must therefore be
held that the considerations of equity cannot confer
on Nagayya or his heirs any title in the lands which
under the statute could be conferred only by a re·
gistered instrument.
Our conclusion
therefore 1s that the High
r
Court was right in holding that Nagayya or his
heirs had acquired no right in the property. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances
of the case, we make no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
KIRPAL SINGH
v.
STATE OF U.P.
(B. P. SINHA c . .J., J. c. SHAH & N. RAJAGOPALA
AYYANGAR JJ.)
Criminal Law-Committal proceedings-Powers and duties
'
of the Mnqistrate-Desirability to examine all the witne8ses to
the actual commission of the offence-Code of Criminal Pro·
cedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), as amended by Act 26 of 1955,
ss.173, 207A (4).
The appell~nt was convicted by the Sessions Judge of the
offence of murder of K and sentenced to death, and the con·
viction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court. The
committal proceedings disclosed that the Magistrate committed
the accused to the Court of
Session without
recording the
evidence of the \\dtnesses to the actual commis~ion of the
offence.
Held that under s. 207 A of the Code of Criminal Pro·
cedure, 1898, as amended by Act 26 of 1955, a Magistrate ha.s •
_,
r
,.