SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1936 Supreme(Mad) 329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Gentle, J.
D. Kondal Rao Naidu and Anr.
Versus
Dhanakoti Ammal
Decided On : 06.10.1936

The accuracy of the description of the property in the sale deed and the significance of the area of the land in determining the validity of the sale.

Headnote:

sale deed - land dispute - Llewellyn v. Earl of Jersey (1843)11 M. & W. 183, Joliffe v. Baker (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 255, Tata Industrial Bank Ltd. v. Rustomji Byramjee Jeejeebhoy A.I.R. (1920) Bom 164 - The court discussed the sale deed, the description of the property, and the legal principles related to the sale of land with estimated area.

Fact of the Case:

The defendant sold a piece of land to the plaintiffs, who claimed that the land conveyed was less than what was agreed upon, and sought damages for the breach of the covenant contained in the sale deed.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the sale deed accurately described the property sold, and any inaccuracy in the later description had no effect on the sale. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for damages, stating that the area of the land was not a primary consideration in the sale.

Issues: Discrepancy in the area of the land conveyed compared to what was agreed upon, and the claim for damages by the plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when land is sold with a clear description, any subsequent erroneous addition or deficiency in the area will not vitiate the sale. The court also emphasized that the area of the land was not the basis of the price settled between the parties.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for damages and ordered the suit to be dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

Gentle, J.

1. Prior to the year 1931 the defendant was the owner of a piece of land in Madras which was known as the Koyyatope garden. It was about 4 3/4 cawnies in extent that is to say, about 114 grounds. Plaintiff 2, who throughout in matters referable to this suit has acted on behalf of himself and on behalf of plaintiff 1, knew of this land, and I am Satisfied was well conversant with every detail of it. In the year 1931 some 14 3/4 grounds or thereabouts were sold by the defendant of which 6 grounds were purchased by plaintiff 2 alone by a sale deed of 29th October 1931. In the early part of 1932 the defendant was anxious to raise money upon the balance of the Koyyatope garden either by selling it or by raising money upon mortgage in respect of it and plaintiff 2 was offering to the defendant his assistance to try to further the defendants objects in regard to this land. He was asked in cross-examination whether he was helping the defendant to sell the land, he stoutly denied it but admitted that a letter dated 15th April 1932, Ex. 2, was his letter and from that it is quite clear that he was doing what I have already indicated in my view he was, and this letter shows that he was well conversant with all matters concerning this property. It would also appear from this letter that it was in contemplation that it would be divided into sites as land was more easily saleable in that way than by larger areas. Sometime at about the period of this letter, Ex. 2, a notice, Ex. A, came into existence which was printed and the defendants name appears at the foot of it, and para. 1 draws the attention of the public to the balance of the Koyyatope garden which was to be sold and it says that there was remaining to be dealt with 99 grounds. It was suggested that plaintiff 2 either assisted in the drafting or himself drafted this document for the defendants use. He on the other hand says that he relied upon its contents when he was contemplating himself buying this land later in the year. Whether he did draft it himself I do not know, but I am perfectly satisfied that he placed no reliance in any way upon its contents when he himself was considering purchasing the land. It would seem that his efforts on behalf of the defendant to find either a purchaser or a mortgagee were unsuccessful. But on 25th July 1932, the defendant in fact mortgaged this property for a sum of Rs. 9,000, no doubt being in immediate need of money at that time, and it does not appear that plaintiff 2 brought about this mortgage or that he had the remuneration he hoped to earn which is indicated in his letter, Ex. 2. However, in November 1932 the defendant and plaintiff 2 on behalf of himself and his co-plaintiff were negotiating for the sale of the remaining land all the Koyyatope garden; and as a result of these negotiations the sale deed, Ex. P dated 11th November 1932, was executed by the parties. There was an antecedent document, Ex. B of 10th November 1932 which dealt with this piece of property and oral evidence has been tendered in regard to the price of the land sold and how that price was computed. In the sale deed the price expressed to be paid for this land is Rs. 17,500 and any oral evidence tending to contradict that, in my opinion, is entirely inadmissible. In like manner also is the document Ex. B, Fry L.S. referred to Leggott v. Barrett (1880)15 Ch. D. 306 in Palmer v. Johnson (1884) 13 Q.B.D. 351 and says:

When a preliminary contr(sic) is afterwards reduced into a deed and there is any difference between them, the mere written contract is entirely governed by the deed.

2. Therefore, so far as the price is concerned, one is confined to the wording of the deed, Ex. F. As I have said, I am quite satisfied that plaintiff 2 was fully conversant with all information concerning the property, the subject of the sale deed. He had bought a few grounds from the whole of the garden, he had visited it on numerous occasions and when he was negotiating an



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top