Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S. Barman, J.
RAMCHANDRA BIHARILAL FIRM - Appellant
Versus
MATHURAMOHAN NAIK - Respondent
Second Appeal 67 Of 1962
Decided On : JANUARY 15, 1964
SALE OF LAND - AGREEMENT TO SELL - CONSIDERATION NOT PAID - TITLE NOT PASSED - SALE DEED LEFT IN CUSTODY OF VENDOR - INTENTION OF PARTIES - CONSTRUCTION OF DOCUMENT - EXTRINSIC FACTORS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of land, claiming to have purchased it from Defendant No. 1 under a registered sale deed. Defendant No. 1 contested the claim, asserting that the consideration was not paid, possession was not delivered, and the sale deed was canceled due to non-payment. The trial court and the lower appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, declaring his title to the land.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the sale deed in question was an involved clause, where the terms regarding passing of title, passing of consideration, and the vendee being made the owner were intermingled. Considering the extraneous factors such as the custody of the document, conduct of the parties, and surrounding circumstances, the court found that it was not the intention of the parties that title would pass irrespective of non-payment of consideration.
Issues: 1. Whether title passed to the purchaser despite non-payment of consideration based on the interpretation of the sale deed. 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for obstruction and loss of paddy.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court applied the tests for determining whether a clause is independent, dependent, or involved, and concluded that the sale deed in question was an involved clause. 2. The court considered the extraneous factors, including the custody of the sale deed, non-payment of consideration, and non-delivery of possession, to determine the intention of the parties. 3. The court held that the plaintiff's claim to the suit land based on the sale deed must fail because no title passed under the same.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal filed by Defendant No. 1 and set aside the decision of the lower courts declaring the plaintiff's title to the suit land. The plaintiff's cross-appeal for damages was dismissed, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed in its entirety.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a dispute over the interpretation of a sale deed related to land property, specifically whether the title passed to the purchaser despite the non-payment of consideration money (!) (!) .
The sale deed in question was an involved clause, where the terms regarding passing of title, consideration, and ownership were intermingled, making it difficult to determine the parties' clear intention (!) .
The courts below initially found that no part of the consideration was paid, possession was not delivered, and the sale deed was kept in the custody of the vendor, which indicated that the title did not pass to the plaintiff (!) (!) .
The court emphasized the importance of extraneous factors such as document custody, conduct of the parties, and surrounding circumstances in construing whether the title passed independently or depended on the payment of consideration (!) (!) .
The court concluded that, given the facts and extraneous circumstances, it was not the intention of the parties that the title would pass without the consideration being paid. Therefore, no title passed to the plaintiff under the sale deed (!) (!) .
As a result, the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed, the decision declaring the plaintiff's title was set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed in its entirety (!) (!) .
The plaintiff's cross-appeal for damages was dismissed because, with the failure of the main claim, there was no basis for damages (!) (!) .
The case highlights the importance of examining extrinsic factors and the precise language of involved or intermingled clauses in sale deeds to determine whether the transfer of title was intended to be independent of consideration payment (!) (!) .
These points collectively underscore the significance of comprehensive document construction and extrinsic evidence in property transfer disputes, especially where sale clauses are involved.
S. BARMAN, J.
( 1 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the appellant, This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title, and possession of 12. 88, acres described in schedule Ka.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff's case is this; The suit land originally belonged to one Narahari mohapatra, grand-father of defendants 2 and 3. Defendant No. 1 Ramchandra beharilal, a firm, obtained a money decree against Narahari. Defendant No. 1 put the suit land in court sale in execution of the said decree and purchased the same. On January 18, 1956 by a registered sale deed Ext. a/1 defendant No. 1 sold the suit land 12. 88 acres in area for consideration of Rs. 600/ -. It was agreed that Rs. 300/- would be paid immediately and possession would be delivered; that the balance of Rs. 300/- would be paid one year after; then tha sale deed itself would be delivered after such payment of the entire consideration money. In pursuance of the said agreement Rs. 300/- was immediately paid and possession was delivered. The balance of Rs. 300/- was not paid. On April 5, 1956 defendant No. 1 sold the suit land to defendants 2 and 3 under a registered sale deed Ext. A-2. The subsequent purchasers defendants 2 and 3 obstructed the plaintiff and took away paddy worth Rs. 200/- which the plaintiff claims as damages. On April 2, 1957 the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title on the basis of his sale deed Ext. , A-1, and for setting aside the subsequent sale deed dated April 5, 1956 executed by defendant No 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 under the registered sale deed ext. A-2 as aforesaid.
( 3 ) THE defence is this : It was agreed that the purchaser plaintiff would pay Rs. 600/- within three days; that the vendor defendant I on receipt of Rs. 600/- will endorse the Registration Ticket in favour of the plaintiff to get the sale deed from the registration office. The plaintiff having failed to pay the consideration money a registered notice Ext. C-1 was given by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff on January 25, 1956. The said notice was received by the plaintiff on February 1956. Thereafter by a registered cancellation deed dated February 15, 1956 the vendor defendant No. 1 cancelled the previous sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The defence is that no consideration had passed. The plaintiff's case of alleged payment of Rs. 300/- is false; there is no delivery of possession of the suit land to the plaintiff.
( 4 ) THE concurrent findings of the courts below are these: There was no agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 that consideration money Rs. 600/would be paid within three days but no part of the consideration was in fact paid. Possession of the suit land was not delivered to the plaintiff. Therefore there was no question of damages to the suit land as alleged. The sale deed Ext. A/i was in the custody of the vendor defendant No. 1. It was still found that in view of the terms of the sale deed title passed to the plaintiff irrespective of non-payment of consideration. Accordingly the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and his title was declared but no damages were granted. The second appeal was filed by defendant No. 1 against the decision of the courts below whereby the plaintiff's title was declared. The plaintiff filed a cross appeal against the decision of the courts below who disallowed the plaintiffs claim for damages and mesne profits.
( 5 ) THE main question is whether on the interpretation of the impugned sale deed ext. A/1 dated January 18, 1956 title had passed to the purchaser plaintiff although no part of the consideration was paid. There are three types of cases, namely; firstly, where it is independent clause, that is to say title would pass independently of the passing of consideration; secondly, dependent clause, that is to say passing of title would be solely dependent on the passing of consideration; thirdly, involved clause that is to say where the terms regarding passing of title, passing
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
