Back
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.M.PANCHAL
Kaliaperumal – Appellant
Versus
Rajagopal – Respondent
Key Points: - The sale deed may pass title to purchaser only upon payment of full consideration, depending on the intention of parties as evidenced by the deed and surrounding conduct (!) (!) - If title passes on execution and registration despite non payment, the vendor may sue for balance price but cannot avoid the sale; creation of a charge for unpaid portion is possible under Section 55(4)(b) (!) - Where the deed states that balance consideration was to be paid before registration and the buyer did not tender it in the vendor’s presence, ownership may not pass on registration alone; intention to transfer on full payment is decisive (!) - The Lower Courts erred by assuming title passed on registration when the parties intended transfer after full payment; High Court upheld that title did not pass until full consideration was paid (!) (!) - The appellant’s claim of partial payment (Rs. 25,000) was rejected; the real readiness was to pay only Rs. 15,000, not Rs. 40,000 (!) - The correct test for passing of property is the intention of the parties, discernible from the sale deed recitals and conduct, supplemented by Section 92 Evidence Act if needed (!) - The appeal was dismissed; there shall be no order as to costs (!) - Facts: sale in 1983 for Rs. 43,000; Rs. 3,000 to discharge mortgage; balance Rs. 40,000 payable at registration; contention about payment left unresolved (!) - Registrar’s endorsement and the vendor’s conduct evidence that no full payment was made and hence title did not pass (!) - The case clarifies that transfer of ownership by sale is subject to the payment condition or its absence, per Section 54 and related doctrines (!)
Judgment :-
J.M. Panchal, J.
The instant appeal is directed against judgment dated November 27, 2001, rendered by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No. 1435 of 1990 by which the decree dated January 23, 1987, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Villupuram declaring the appellant to be owner of the disputed property and directing the respondents to hand over possession of the same to the appellant with mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month with proportionate costs, and affirmed (subject to the modification that appellant will be entitled to possession only on deposit of Rs.40,000/-) by the learned District Judge, South Arcot District at Cuddalore vide judgment dated December 15, 1988, rendered in Appeal No. 55 of 1987, is set aside.
2. Thefacts emerging from the record of the case are as under: -
The suit properties originally belonged to the family of the respondents. First respondent (for himself and his minor sons) and the second respondent sold the properties to the appellant for a consideration of Rs.43,000/- by a deed dated June 26, 1983. Out of the sale consideration of Rs.43,000/- a sum of Rs.3,000/- was to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
