IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement to sell – Normally, on execution and registration of a sale deed containing recitals regarding payment of consideration and delivery of possession, sale is complete even if sale price is not paid and it will not be possible to cancel sale deed in its entirety.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay S. Oka, J.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. The appellants are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to with reference to their status before the Trial Court. The Trial Court decreed the Suit which has been reversed in appeal.

2. The plaintiff is the son-in-law of the first defendant. The first defendant has four daughters. One of the daughters, Sachita Devi has been married to the plaintiff. The second defendant is another daughter of the first defendant who is married to one Komal Singh.

3. The first defendant was heavily indebted. He had borrowed money from various persons by executing mortgage deeds, hand notes, etc. As the first defendant was unable to pay debts, he decided to sell the suit property. Accordingly, he executed a registered Sale Deed on 04th February 1963 in favour of the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.10,000/. According to the case of the plaintiff, he was placed in possession of the suit property and started cultivating the same. His contention was that there was an absolute sale under the Sale Deed dated 04th February 1963 (for short, ‘the Sale Deed’).

4. Even according to the case of the plaintiff, a part of the consideration was to be paid by him to the creditors of the first defendant. In the plaint, the plaintiff has described the steps taken by him to clear the loans repayable by the first defendant and money paid by him from time to time to various persons in that behalf. His contention is that he paid off the debt as mentioned in the Sale Deed. The plaintiff has contended that the first defendant being his father-in-law, collected the registered Sale Deed from the office of the Sub Registrar and has kept the same in his custody.

5. The first defendant executed a registered Deed of Cancellation dated 15th June 1967 in respect of the cancellation of the Sale Deed. The plaintiff was admittedly not a signatory to the said Deed of Cancellation. Thereafter, the first defendant purported to execute a Gift Deed dated 12th January 1968 (for short ‘the Gift Deed’) in respect of the suit property in favour of the second defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that though he was all along in possession, on the basis of the order passed in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 he was illegally dispossessed from the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration of title. The plaintiff also claimed a declaration that the Gift Deed is forged. The plaintiff prayed for a decree for possession of the suit property.

6. The basic contention of the first defendant in his written statement was that by the Sale Deed, absolute sale was not effected. It is contended that out of the consideration of Rs.10,000/, the plaintiff had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6,875/for redeeming the 10 mortgages made by the first defendant. The balance amount of Rs.3,125/was to be paid on the exchange of equivalents (ta khubzul badlain). The contention of the first defendant is that in fact the mortgages were redeemed by him and therefore, he was in possession of the mortgage deeds. His contention is that as no consideration was passed under the Sale Deed, the plaintiff has not acquired any right, title or interest in the suit property.

7. The Trial Court after indepth consideration of the evidence on record, concluded that the plaintiff had acquired ownership in respect of the suit property on the basis of the Sale Deed. It was held that the Deed of Cancellation dated 15th June 1967 being a unilateral document was not valid. The Trial Court held that the remedy of the first defendant was to invoke Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and seek cancellation of the Sale Deed. The Trial Court also held that the second defendant did not acquire any right, title or interest on the basis of the Gift Deed executed by the first defendant. The Trial Court accepted the case made out by the appellant that the liabilitie