Important Point
In the facts and circumstances of the case, sale deed dated 30.4.1963 (Ex. C) executed by first defendant group in favour of the plaintiffs conveyed absolute title to and interest in the suit property.

Headnote:Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -Sections 8 and 54-Sale deed dated April 30, 1963 (Ex. C) executed by first defendant group (predecessors of respondents) in favour of plaintiffs (predecessors of appellants)-Question whether it conveyed absolute title to and interest in suit property? (Yes)-Non deposit of mortgage money whether fatal to the suit for redemption? (No)-Later cancellation and re-sale to second purchasers-Not sustainable in law-Appeal allowed.
       Held : A combined reading of Section 8 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act suggests that though on execution and registration of a sale deed, the ownership and all interests in the property pass to the transferee, yet that would be on terms and conditions embodied in the dead indicating the intention of the parties. It follows that on execution and registration of a sale deed, the ownership title and all interests in the property pass to the purchaser unless a different intention is either expressed or necessarily implied which has to be proved by the party asserting that title has not passed on registration of the sale deed. Such intention can be gathered by intrinsic evidence, namely, from the averments in the sale deed itself or by other attending circumstances subject, of course, to the provisions of Section 92 of the Evidence Act. (Para 12)
       [The] averments unmistakably indicated conveying of title to the property absolutely for consideration as outlined; by virtue of the sale the purchasers were put in possession of the property conveyed, became entitled to the custody of the sale deed and other documents and enjoyment of the property by them. These factors satisfy all the requirements of absolute sale. No recital in Exhibit-C is brought to our notice to indicate any contra-intention. (Para 15)
       We have already referred to the findings of the courts below. Although the trial Court found that Rs. 3,000/-, a part of the consideration, was not paid, the High Court relying upon receipt, Exhibit-6, held that it was paid on May 5, 1963, as claimed by the first purchasers; the balance of consideration of Rs. 235/- was admittedly deposited by the first purchasers in court. Thus, the entire consideration was paid by the first purchasers. Further, the High Court expressed the view that not depositing the sudhbharna bond amount of Rs. 6,249/- in court would be fatal to the case of the first purchasers. That view is contrary to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Shiva Narayan Sah & Ors. v. Baidya Nath Prasad Tiwary & Ors. (AIR 1973 Patna 383). We are in agreement with the opinion of the Patna High Court in Shiva Narayan Sah’s case that depositing the mortgage amount in court is one of the three ways available to the mortgagor before filing a redemption suit and that he was free to choose any mode; non-deposit of the mortgage money was not fatal to the suit. Further, as the first purchasers had deposited that amount in terms of the decree of the trial Court, this point is not available to the vendors. Therefore, on that ground, it cannot be said that part of the consideration was not paid. In any event, as sale of suit property under Exhibit-C was subject to mortgage, it was for the vendee to discharge the mortgage debt so any default or delay in payment the said amount cannot be construed as non-payment of consideration. On construction of Exhibit-C, we find that the recitals whereof are unambiguous and that the parties have expressed no intention that unless the sudhbharna bond amount is paid, the title to the suit property will not pass to the vendee. The only ground that remains is non delivery of the registration receipt by the vendors to the first purchasers which appears to be due to subsequent developments, namely, execution of Exhibit-H and Exhibit-C/1, so it cannot be said to indicate an intention which interdicts passing of title to the first purchasers under Exhibit-C. We may observe that it was not open to the vendors to unilaterally cancel Exhibit-C by executing Exhibit-H. The trial Court on interpretation of Exhibit-C came to the conclusion, in our view rightly, that (1) title to the suit property passed on to the first purchasers on execution and registration of Exhibit-C, but the High Court reversed that finding for reasons which, as pointed out by us, are unsustainable. (Para 16)
       In the result, we set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court under appeal to the extent indicated above, decree the suit of the first purchasers (plaintiffs) as prayed for and allow this appeal accordingly. The costs of the appellants in this appeal should be borne by the Respondents Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11. (Para 19)

Judgment

Quadri, J.-This appeal raises the question: whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, sale deed dated April 30, 1963 (Exhibit-C) executed by the first defendant group in favour of the plaintiffs conveyed absolute title to and interest in the suit property.

2. The facts which gave rise to this question may be noticed here.

3. The plaintiffs (Predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, hereinafter referred to as ‘the first purchasers’) purchased land measuring 9 bighas 17 kathas and 12 dhoors, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’) from Defendant No. 1 as Karta of H.U.F. and its members (Predecessors-in-interest of Respondents 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11, hereinafter referred to as ‘the vendors’) under the registered sale deed dated April 30, 1963 (Exhibit-C). On the alleged ground of the first purchasers not paying the entire consideration amount the vendors by a registered document dated June 19, 1963, Exhibit-H, purported to cancel Exhibit-C, and on July 8, 1963 executed a second sale deed, Exhibit C/1, in favour of respondents 1 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the second purchasers’). Coming to know of these facts, the first purchasers filed Title Suit No. 64/63 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Samastipur, District Darbhanga. They claimed that under the sale deed dated April 30, 1963. Exhibit-C. they purchased the suit property for valuable consideration, and acquired absolute title thereunder and that out of sale consideration, only a sum of Rs. 235/- remained to be paid, which they deposited in the court to the credit of the vendors along with the plaint; that Exhibits H and C/1 were illegal, ineffective and not binding on the first purchasers. They prayed that the said Exhibits H and C/1 be declared illegal, invalid and not binding on them, decree be granted against the vendors to deliver the original sale deed dated April 30, 1963 and against the mortgagees for redemption of suit property.

4. The vendors resisted the suit; in their written statement it was pleaded that the parties agreed that if the first purchasers did not pay the entire amount of consideration, they would not get title or possession of the suit property; the total sale consideration was Rs. 15,000/-, out of which Rs. 6,249/- were kept in deposit as being payable to the mortgagees under sudhbharna bond dated July 29, 1946, Rs. 516/- were set off, being the amount payable to the first purchasers by the vendors, and that the balance consideration of Rs. 8,235/- was agreed to be paid in cash to the vendors on the date of registration. But the first purchasers paid only Rs. 5000/- in the presence of the Registrar and promised to pay the balance of Rs. 3,235/- later; the registration receipt was kept with the vendors to be endorsed in favour of the first purchasers at the time of payment of the said amount. However, neither sudhbharna bond amount of Rs. 6,249/- was paid to the mortgagees nor did the first purchasers endeavour to redeem the mortgage nor paid the balance of consideration of Rs. 3,235/- to the vendors, therefore, the vendors cancelled the sale deed Exhibit-C by executing Exhibit-H on June 19, 1963 and sold the suit property in favour of the second purchasers under registered sale deed on July 8, 1963 (Exhibit C/1).

5. The mortgagees by filing a separate written statement supported the case of the vendors.

6. On these pleadings, the parties went on trial on the following, among other issues:

"Issue No. 4 : Whether the plaintiffs derived a good title to the suit property under sale deed dated 30.4.1963 executed by defendants first party or whether that sale deed for want of payment of consideration was fraudulent and nominal one.

Issue No. 5 : Whether the sale deed dated 8.7.1963 was true and binding on the parties.

Issue No. 6 : Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree to this effect that in precedence of the sale deed dated 30th March, 1963, the other sale deed dated 8th July, 1963 is invalid, ineffective

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 839

Important PointIn the facts and circumstances of the case, sale deed dated 30.4.1963 (Ex. C) executed by first defendant group in favour of the plaintiffs conveyed absolute title to and interest in the suit property.

Important Point
In the facts and circumstances of the case, sale deed dated 30.4.1963 (Ex. C) executed by first defendant group in favour of the plaintiffs conveyed absolute title to and interest in the suit property.