The sale deed conveyed title to the plaintiff upon registration, regardless of the payment of consideration. The intention of the parties to convey title was evident from the clear and unambiguous terms of the deed, and the non-delivery of possession did not affect the conveyance of title.

( 1 ) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiff in the Courts below is the appellant. Her suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and ascertainment of mesne profits has been dismissed by both the Courts. The question of law that arises for determination is, when does the title in the immovable properly pass to the purchaser; does it pass on the registration of sate deed or on the payment of consideration, if it had remained unpaid.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this appeal are as follows: house bearing door No. 47 is Ward No. 5 in Town Panchayat, Kampli belonged to defendants. By sale deed executed on 26-6-1972, and registered on 24-8-1972, the house was sold to plaintiff for Rs. 5,000/ -. Though the deed recited that possession was delivered, it was indeed not. Hence this suit. The defendants admitted that they had agreed to sell the house; their main defence was that sale consideration was agreed at rs. 9,000/-; out of which Rs. 5,000/- was to be mentioned in the sale deed to be paid before the Sub-Registrar and the remaining rs. 4,000/- was to be paid unaccounted; in common parlance it is "black money". Though they executed the sale deed they did not appear before the registering authority as "consideration" was not paid. Obviously to them the word "consideration" connoted Rs. 9,000/- with the above split up of figures. They did not deliver possession. However, the custody of the registered sale deed was with the plaintiff.

( 3 ) APROPOS it is necessary to take note of the procedure adopted for registration. On 26-6-1972, after executing the sale deed, the defendants did not appear for registration before the Authority. The Sub-Registrar issued before the Authority. The Sub-Registrar issued summons lo the executants. On 2-8-1972, both the executants appeared; they admitted their signatures; but objected to the registration without explicitly stating the reason. The answer given by Kalingappa reads thus:- Similarly the answer of K. Rudrappa reads thus: It is obvious that they were not ready to give out the reasons in support of their objection to registration. This vague and evasive reply keeps one guessing as to what could be the bidden reason, which could not be stated. Concealed matter gives rise to speculations. There was nothing to hide so far as Rs. 5,000/- was concerned, as it was clearly mentioned in the deed; if that had not been received, nothing precluded them to frankly state that they have not received that consideration. But that is not so. It is well known that unlawful dealings and transaction in black money are done in hush-hush. The defendants could not openly tell this reason, their attitude was suspicious. The Sub-Registrar proceeded to register the document. His endorsement on the document (Ext. P-1) reads thus:"the executants (1) K. Kalingappa (2) k. Rudrappa, appeared in this office before the Sub-Registrar on 2nd August 1912. The Executants ADMITTED execution of this document. But they refuse to give their signatures and their thumb impressions in this endorsement and in thumb impression register. The same has been endorsed in this endorsement as per sub-section (2) of section 58 of Indian Registration Act 1908 (Central Act XVII of 1908) read with rule 73 sub-rule (ii) of Mysore registration Rules, 1965. The depositions made by the executants have been recorded in the deposition Book in page Nos. 214 and 215 to their admitting of execution on 2-8-1972. Sd/-xxx sub-Registrar, Kampli, 2-8-1972".

( 4 ) THE defendants got issued a lawyer's notice on 30th June, 1972. They admitted that they have signed the sale deed on 26-6-1972, and agreed to present the document for registration on the same day. They alleged that plaintiff did not pay Rs. 9,000/- as agreed between the parties; but he wanted to pay only Rs, 5,000/-, therefore they refused to register the document. Plaintiff sent a reply on 7-7-1972 (Ext. P-3 ). She stated thus:"your clients received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- before the attestors of