Andalammal vs Narasimharaghavachariar and Others

There is nothing in the memorandum of objections, and it is dismissed with costs.

As regards the second appeal, we are unable to interfere with the finding of the lower Appellate Court that Rs. 50 of the purchase-money (Rs.

100) entered in the 1st defendant''s (appellant''s) sale-deed wag not received by plaintiff''s mother (who was plaintiff''s guardian then) for the

plaintiffs benefit and that the 1st defendant did not make proper and sufficient inquiries as to the existence of the necessity to raise that Rs. 50. But

simply because the 1st defendant''s negligence in making due and sufficient enquiries affects his title to the property which he purchased, when such

title is put into question by the plaintiff, it does not follow (as assumed by the learned District Judge in the 1st sentence of paragraph 5 of his

judgment) that 1st defendant did not believe in good faith that he was the full owner when he effected improvements on the purchased property.

As pointed out in Mathunsa Rowthan v. Apsa 12 lnd. Cas. 444 : 21 M.L.J. 969 : 10 M.L.T. 373 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 425 : 36 M. 194. the

good faith required by Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act to entitle a person to got compensation for improvements effected by him ""does

not go beyond an honest belief in the validity of his title"" and we think that such an honest belief is proved in this case, though that honest belief

might be a negligent belief, and hence did not suffice to properly protect his title, as against the plaintiff.

We, therefore, modify the lower Appellate Court''s decree by adding Rs. 200 to the Rs. 50 made payable to 1st defendant by the plaintiff.

Time for payment of the total Rs. 250 is extended till six months from to-day.

The parties will bear their respective costs in all Courts except as regards the costs of memorandum of objections already adjudicated upon in

the beginning of this judgment.