Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.JAGANADHA RAO, P.RAMACHANDRA RAJU
Mungamuru Lakshmidevamma - Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Division Officer, Kavali and Ors. - Respondent
A.S.No.2804/1982
Decided On : 11-06-84
Advocates Appeared :
.
Held: The provisions of Sec. 55 (4) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act which create a charge on the date of the sale itself are not attracted to the case of an oral sale for in the case of a regular registered sale of immovable property where, the consideration remains unpaid there would be a statutory charge under Sec- 55 (4) from the very date of sale whereas in the case of an oral sale where the vendor remains the owner of the property for 12 years before the title is extinguished under Sec. 27 of the Limitation Act there could be no claim for a charge for the vendor s unpaid consideration from the date of oral sale for the vendor could not have a charge over property of which he continued to be the owner, Obviously the statutory charge referred to in Sec. 55 (4) (b) would arise only where the ownership of the property has passed in accordance with the provisions of Sec 54 viz., by way of a registered instrument in respect of property of the value of more than Rs.100/-. Therefore the provisions of Sec. 55 (4) (b) creating a statutory charge in favour of the vendor do not apply to the case of an invalid sale or an oral sale. At the end of the period of 12 years mentioned in Article 64 of the Limitation Act the purchaser under the oral sale would acquire the title of the vendor under Sec. 27 of the limitation Act 1963. In as much as the provisions of Sec. 55 (4) (b) are not applicable to such an acquisition of title which is not one of the modes provided by Sec. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, there cm be no question of the vendor obtaining any charge on the property after the transfer of title by virtue of the operation of Sec. 27 of the Limitation Act.
Thus in the case of an oral sale there is no statutory charge as provided under Sec. 55 (4) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act, there is no equitably charge, in view of the principles stated by the Privy Counsel, nor is there an contractual charge in the absence of a registered instrument creating a charge. Hence in the instant case, it has been held that when the second claimant orally sold the property in favour of the first claimant s sons in 1953 the vendees acquired a valid title by virtue of Sec. 27 of the limitation Act to the property by 1965, that the vendor does not have a charge for the unpaid consideration created in his favour either in 1953 or in 1965 or thereafter, in as much as the provisions of Sec. 55 (4) (b) of the Transfer of property Act do not apply and there is no equitable charge in Indian Law for the unpaid purchase money apart from Sec. 55 (4) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act nor is there any registered instrument creating a charge. Limitation Act, Sec. 18, Explanation (a) - Acknowledgement of amount due is sufficient for creditor to enforce debt along with charge in respect of debt though charge is not specifically refer rod to in acknowledgement.
An acknowledgement of the amount due towards the sale-consideration is sufficient for the Creditor to enforce the debt along the charge in respect of the debt. The acknowledgement need not specifically refer to the charge. The language of explanation (a) to Sec. 18 of the Limitation Act clearly states that the acknowledgement is sufficient though it omits to specify the nature of the property or right.
( 1 ) THE question of law that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the vendor of immovable property under an oral sale is entitled to claim a charge under Sec. 55 (4) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act for the unpaid purchase money against the vendee after the expiry of 12 years from the date of the oral sale when the vendee has acquired title by adverse possession?
( 2 ) THE above question has arisen in a reference under Sec. 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act which was disposed of in Op. No. 21/81 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kavali. The contest was between the two respondents before the lower court of whom M. Lakshmidevamma was the first claimant while her brother, J. Chandrasekara Reddy was the second claimant.
( 3 ) 2. 36 Hectares of Land was acquired in the village of Leguntapadu in Nellore District by a notification published on 16-10-1979 under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation payable according to the award was a sum of Rs. 67,035. 76. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dt. 11-3-81 for the said sum in favour of the rightful owner and made a reference on 14-4-1981 to the Civil Court under sec. 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act and meanwhile deposited the amount in the civil court. He pointed out that the acquired land stands registered in the name of the 2nd claimant Sri J. Chandrasekhara Reddy but the land is in the possession of the first claimant who has been paying taxes from 1970 onwards as per Exs. A-1 to A-7. He pointed out that the 2nd claimant gave a statement on 1-12-1980 (Ex. A-12) earlier to the effect that he has orally sold the property to the three sons of the first claimant in 1953 but that subsequently he claimed that the title continued to be vested in himself and that he was entitled to the entire claims that the property was sold to her sons orally in 1953 for Rs. 1,20,000. 00 and that subsequently in the family partition in 1970 Ac. 5-80 cents inclusive of this property was allotted to the first claimant and that she claimed to be the owner. After the reference the claimants filed their respective claims statements before the Sub-court. , Kavali. The first claimant M. Lakshmidevamma examined herself as R. W. 1 and filed Exs. A-1 to A-13 while the 2nd claimant examined himself as R. W. 2 but did not file any documentary evidence.
( 4 ) ON a consideration of the above material, Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the 2nd claimant had only agreed to sell the acquired land to the sons of the 1st claimant, the patta continued to be in the name of the 2nd claimant who took promissory notes for the balance of consideration, that the partition in the family of the 1st claimant allotting the acquired property to the 1st claimant was not binding on the 2nd claimant and that the sons of the 1st claimant could not claim the entire compensation without paying the balance of consideration to the 2nd claimant. He therefore held that no title passed to the 1st claimant or to her sons and that she has no right to put forward any claim. He further held that the 1st claimant or her sons are entitled only to the amount that may be left over after the 2nd claimant is paid the balance amount of consideration of Rs. 50,000. 00 plus expenses which he had incurred by filing suits for realising the balance sale consideration. The remaining amount above mentioned can be paid to the 1st claimant only if her sons filed affidavits admitting that they are not interested in the said sum. The learned subordinate Judge rejected the contention of the 1st claimant that the title of the 2nd claimant stood extinguished by adverse possession in view of sec. 27 of the Limitation Act, in as much as the 2nd claimant took promissory notes which still remained unpaid as proceedings are pending in courts for recovery of the balance amount. In the result the learned Subordinate Judge directed in the first instance the payment of Rs. 50,000. 00 plus costs incurred by
SupremeToday
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
