Title to land does not pass with the mere execution and registration of a sale deed if the parties have agreed that title would pass only after payment of full consideration money.

NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, J.

1. Defendants second set are the appellants. Plaintiff-respondents instituted the suit in question in the Court of learned Munsif, Sasaram, for declaration that they have acquired title to the land described in Sch. A of the plaint, by virtue of a sale deed dated 4-1-1963 executed by the defendant first set and for a direction to the defendant first set to hand over the original sale deed and to receive Rs. 1,500/-, the consideration money for the sale in question.

2. According to the plaintiffs, the land in question belonged to the defendant first set, who agreed to sell the same to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 1,500/-. In pursuance of the said agreement, a sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiffs, which was registered on 4-1-1963. According to the plaintiffs the consideration money of Rs. 1,500.00 was to be paid to the defendant first set at the time of the handing over of the registration receipt at the village, however, the title was to pass with the execution of the sale deed in question. Further case of the plaintiffs was that after the registration of the sale deed, they approached defendant first set on several occasions and tendered the consideration money and asked for the registration receipt, but defendant first set neither accepted the consideration money nor made over the registration receipt. The conduct of the aforesaid defendant created suspicion and, accordingly, the plaintiffs sent a registered notice on 18-1-1963 (Ext. 3) to the defendant first set, which was served on 21-1-1963. Even after the service of the said notice, he neither accepted the consideration money nor granted the registration receipt. They later learnt that he had executed another sale deed in favour of defendants second set, i. e., the appellants on 11-1-1963 (Ext. Kha-2), after cancelling the earlier deed on 10-1-1963 (Ext. Kha-1). On the aforesaid allegations, a declaration was sought for, as already stated above, that the plaintiffs had derived title on the basis of the sale deed executed in their favour and the sale deed executed in favour of the defendants, second set-appellants, was inoperative and no title passed to them. The suit in question was filed on 4-2-1963.

3. Learned Munsif, on a consideration of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have acquired valid title to the suit land on execution and registration of the sale deed in question, in spite of the fact that the consideration money was not actually paid. He was of the view that the defendant-appellants had purported to purchase the land in question with knowledge and notice of the sale in favour of the plaintiffs, and, as such, they have derived no title to the same by virtue of the sale deed executed in their favour on 11-1-1963. He further held that the plaintiffs were entitled to get the custody of the original sale deed, which was then in custody of the Court, after depositing a sum of Rs. 1,500.00 being the consideration money in Court for payment to the defendant first set. On these findings the suit was decreed. The appeal filed on behalf of the appellants was also dismissed by learned Subordinate Judge who affirmed the findings of the learned Munsif.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has challenged the findings of the Courts below that the plaintiffs acquired title to the land in question with the mere execution and registration of the sale deed. According to learned counsel, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, title was to pass only after payment of the consideration money, which admittedly was not paid at the time of the execution and registration of the sale deed.

5. The question whether title to the property covered by a sale deed will pass to the vendee or not without payment of the full consideration money has been a subject-matter of controversy from time to time and it has been pointed out on several occasions by this Court that it