il Appeals Nos
83 85 of 1965
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated February 9 1962 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Tr
Appeal No 558 of 1957 and A section Nos 89 and 157 of 1957 respectively
P Ram Reddy A V V Nair B Parthasarathy and 0
C Mathur for the appellant in all the appeals
C R Pattabhiraman and R Ganapathy Iyer for the respon dents in CAs
Nos 83 and 84 of 1965 and respondents Nos 15 in CA No 85 of 1965
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J
One Venkatacharyulu was the Karta of a joint family consisting of himself and his four sons
The appellant was his concubine since 1945 until his death on February 22 1949
By two registered deeds purporting to be sale deeds dated April 15 1946 Exbts
A 1 and A 2 he transferred to the appellant certain properties belonging to the joint family
In 1947 after the execution of exhibit 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
In 1954 his widow and sons instituted OS No 12 of 1954 against the appellant for recovery of possession of the properties alleging that the documents dated April 15 1946 were executed without consideration or for immoral purposes and were void
The appellant instituted against his widow and sons OS No 63 of 1954 asking for general partition of the joint family properties and for allotment to her of the properties conveyed by the two deeds
She also instituted OS No 62 of 1954 against one of his sons and another person asking for damages and mesne profits for wrongful trespass on the properties
The trial court dis missed OS No 12 of 1954 and OS No 62 of 1954 and decreed OS No 63 of 1954
From these decrees appeals were preferred in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
The High Court confirmed the decree in OS No 6254 allowed the two other appeals dismissed OS No 6354 and decreed OS No 1254 the decree for possession in respect of the properties covered by exhibit A 1 being conditional on payment by the respondents of the value of improvements made by the appellant to the properties
From the decrees passed by the High Court the present appeals have been filed by special leave
The High Court found that the transfers under exhibit A 1 and exhibit A 2 were not supported by any consideration by way of cash or delivery of jewels
This finding is not challenged before us
The High Court held that the transfers were made by Venkatacharyulu in favour of the appellant in view of past illicit cohabitation 45 with her such past cohabitation was the motive and not the consideration for the transfers and the two deeds though ostensibly sale deeds were in reality gift deeds
It held that Venkatacharyulu had no power to make a gift of the joint family properties the two deeds were invalid and the subsequent severance of joint status in 1947 could not validate them
In this Court it is common case that future illicit cohabitation was not the object or the consideration for the transfers under exhibit A 1 and exhibit A 2
The appellant contends that Venkatacharyulu agreed to make the transfers in consideration of past cohabitation having regard to section 2d of the  her past service was a valuable consideration and Venkatacharyulu was competent to alienate for value his undivided interest in the coparcenary properties
The respondents contend that the transfers were by way of gifts and not in consideration of the past cohabitation and Venkatacbaryulu was not competent to make a gift of the coparcenary properties
In the alternative the respondents contend that assuming that the transfers were made in consideration of past cohabitation they were hit by Sec 6h of the 
Our findings are as follows Venkatacharyulu and the appellant were parties to an illicit intercourse
The two agreed to cohabit
Pursuant to the agreement each rendered services to the other
Her services were given in exchange for his promise under which she obtained similar services
In lieu of her services he promised to give his services only and not his properties
Having once operated as the consideration for his earlier promise her past services could not be treated under section 2d of the as a subsisting consideration for his subsequent promise to transfer the properties to her
The past cohabitation was the motive and not the consideration for the transfers under exhibit A 1 and A 2
The transfers were without consideration and were by way of gifts
The gifts were not hit by sec
6h of the  by reason of the fact that they were motivated by a desire to compensate the concubine for her past services
In Balo vs Parbati1 the Court held that the assignment of mortgagee s rights to a woman in consideration of past cohabitation was not hit by sec
6h of the and was valid
Properly speaking the past cohabitation was the motive and not the consideration for the assignment
The assignment was without consideration by way of gift and as such was not bit by section 6h
1 ILR 1940 All
370 46 In Istak Kamu Musalman vs Ranchhod Zipru Bhate1 the court rightly held that past cohabitation 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 consideration of past illicit cohabitation and consequently those gifts were invalid the Court seems to have too readily assumed that past cohabitation was the consideration for the subsequent promises
Venkatacharyulu was free to make a gift of his own property to his concubine
The gifts under Exs
Al and A 2 were not hit  by section 6h of the 
But the properties gifted under exhibit A 1 and A 2 were coparcenary properties
Under the Madras school of Mitakshara law by which Venkatacharyulu was governed he had no power to make a gift of even his undivided interest in the coparcenary properties to his concubine
The gifts were therefore invalid
The invalid gifts were not 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 coparcenary properties to the appellant but he did not make any such gift
The transfers under Exs
A 1 and A 2 were and are invalid
We find no ground for interfering with the decrees passed by the High Court
In the result the appeals are dismissed
There will be one set of costs and one hearing fee
Y P Appeals dismissed
1 ILR  217


Summary:
V the karta of a joint Hindu family transferred in 1946 certain properties of the joint family to the appellant who was his concubines since 1945
The joint family disrupted in 1947 and after V s death the respondents his widow and sons filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of possession of the properties alleging that the documents were executed without consideration or for immoral purposes
and were void
The appellant instituted suits for partition of the joint family properties and for allotment to her the properties conveyed by the deeds
The trial court dismissed the respondents  suit and decreed the appellant s suit which the High Court reversed
In appeal to this Court the appellant contended that V agreed to make the transfers in consideration of past cohabitation having regard to section 2d of the her past service was a valuable consideration and V was competent to alienate for value his undivided interest in the coparcenary properties
The respondents contended that the transfers were by way of gifts and not in consideration of the past cohabitation and V was not competent to make a gift of the coparcenary properties and even assuming that the transfers were made in consideration of past cohabitation they were hit by section 6 h of the 
HELD Under the Madras School of Mitakshara law by which V was governed
he had no power to make a gift of even his undivided interest in the coparcenary properties to his concubine
46C V and the appellant were parties to an illicit intercourse
The two agreed to cohabit
Pursuant to the agreement each rendered services to the other
Her services were given in exchange for his promise under which she obtained similar services
In view of her services he promised to give his services only and not his properties
Having once operated as the consideration for his earlier promise
her past services could not be treated under section 2d of the as a subsisting consideration for the properties to her
The past cohabitation was the motive and not the consideration for the transfers which were without consideration and were by way of gifts
The gifts were not hit by section 6h of the Transfer of property Act by reason of the fact that they were motivated by a desire to compensate the concubine for her past services
45E G The invalid gifts were not validated by the disruption of the joint family in 1947
After the disruption of the joint family V was free to make a gift of his divided interest in the coparcenary properties to the appellant but he did not make any such gift
46D Balo vs Parbati ILR 1940 All 370 and Istalk Kamu Musalman vs Ranchhod Zipru Bhate ILR  217 referred to 44