Back
High Court Of Orissa
K. C. JAGADEB ROY
ISWAR DAS - Appellant
Versus
MURALIDHAR RAI - Respondent
First Appeal 157 Of 1979
Decided On : 04/10/1991
SALE DEED - Passing of Title - Consideration - Recitals in Sale Deed - Intention of Parties - Registration - Effect - Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (O.L.R. Act) - Ss. 22, 23 - Applicability - Jurisdiction of Civil Court.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of right, title, and interest in the suit house, alleging that he had purchased the property from Defendant No. 1 and that Defendants Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were trespassers. Defendant No. 1 died during the pendency of the suit, and his legal representatives were substituted in his place. Defendant No. 1 (a) filed a written statement and contested the suit, while Defendants Nos. 2, 3, and 4 filed a joint written statement but did not examine any witnesses. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the deceased Defendant No. 1, that no consideration passed from the plaintiff to Defendant No. 1 for the suit house, and that the sale deed was invalid. The plaintiff appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had paid a part of the consideration to Defendant No. 1 as advance payment, but that the balance amount of Rs. 9,000/- was not paid before or at the time of execution of the sale deed. However, the court held that the non-payment of the balance consideration did not affect the passing of title to the property in favor of the plaintiff, as the recitals in the sale deed clearly indicated that the vendor intended to transfer the title to the purchaser from the date of execution. The court also held that the sale deed was a completed document and that the property passed on the day of sale, independent of consideration, as the recitals were clear that the title was not intended to be dependent on the passing of consideration. The court further held that the sale deed, being compulsorily registrable under S. 17 of the Indian Registration Act, operated from the time of execution and not from the date of registration. The court also rejected the defendant's contention that the sale was hit by S. 23 of the O.L.R. Act, holding that the determination of the legality of the transfer under S. 22 of the Act was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer and could not be agitated in a civil court.
Issues: 1. Whether the non-payment of the balance consideration affected the passing of title to the property in favor of the plaintiff? 2. Whether the sale deed was a completed document and the property passed on the day of sale, independent of consideration? 3. Whether the sale deed operated from the time of execution or from the date of registration? 4. Whether the sale was hit by S. 23 of the O.L.R. Act and whether the civil court had jurisdiction to determine the legality of the transfer?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The intention of the parties as to the time of passing of title is to be determined from the terms of the contract of sale, and if the terms are clear and unambiguous, extraneous evidence is not admissible. 2. Where the recitals in a sale deed clearly indicate that the vendor intended to transfer the title to the purchaser from the date of execution, the non-payment of the balance consideration does not affect the passing of title. 3. A sale deed that is compulsorily registrable under S. 17 of the Indian Registration Act operates from the time of execution and not from the date of registration. 4. The determination of the legality of a transfer under S. 22 of the O.L.R. Act is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer, and a civil court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on such matters.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the right, title, and interest in the suit property were declared in favor of the appellant-plaintiff with costs against the defendant No. 1 (a).
K. C. JAGADEB ROY, J.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. He filed Title Suit No. 55/ 7 of 1978 / 76 for a declaration that he has the right, title and interest in the suit house No. 94, in Ward No. 6 situated on Plot No. 700 of Khata No. 58 of Kantabanjhi Nazul and Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are trespassers and are liable for eviction. In the alternative, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for refund of the consideration money with interest from defendant No. 1 that was paid by the plaintiff to deft. No. 1 towards the full value of the said property and for a further declaration that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are liable to pay him the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month for the period of their occupation under the plaintiff with effect from 20-6-1967.
( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 wanted to sell the suit house which the plaintiff agreed to purchase and on 15-6-67 there was an agreement between the parties fixing the consideration at Rs. 10,000/-, on which date the plaintiff paid Rs. 1000/- to deft. No. 1 in part performance of the contract. On the date of the aforesaid agreement, the suit house was under occupation of monthly tenants, namely, deft. Nos. 3 and 4 who are related with each other as father and son. It was decided by the parties that the registration of the document would be made before the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh on 20-6-67. On 19-6-67 deft. No. 1 made a formal delivery of possession and since defts. Nos. 3 and 4 were occupying most to the premises they agreed in presence of the partition that they would be treated as tenants under the plaintiff and pay him rent to which both the plaintiff and deft. No. 1 agreed. Only a servant room which was kept vacant was delivered to the plaintiff on 19-6-67. On 20-5-67 a deed of sale was executed between the deft. No. 1 and the plaintiff but it could not be registered as deft. No. 1 before registration, left the premises of the Sub-Registrar's office on the pretext of taking tea and never returned. However, on 21-8-67 according to the plaintiff, deft No. 1 presented the sale deed after receiving the balance consideration of Rs. 9,000/- from the plaintiff and the sale deed was registered bearing Registration No. 2636 of 1967. It is the further allegation of the plaintiff that he got his name mutated in the municipal records and is paying the Municipal Tax thereafter. It is contended by the plaintiff, however, that on 22-6-67 deft No. 1 executed another sale deed in respect of the said property in favour of deft. No. 2 who is the brother's wife of deft. No. 3, on the ill-advice of defts. Nos. 3 and 4. No consideration actually passed and no possession of the property was ever transferred to the said Deft. No. 2 and according to the plaintiff the sale deed dated 22-6-67 was a sham transaction and was not acted upon. However, Deft. No. 1 later on 14-8-67 by a deed No. 2067 has cancelled the sale deed dt. 22-6-67 made in favour of Deft No. 2. In the suit, the plaintiff has made Defts. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 parties apart from Deft. No. 1.
( 3 ) DEFT No. 1 did not file any written statement and died during pendency of the suit. His legal representatives Defts. Nos. 1 (a) to 1 (e) were substituted in his place. Deft. No. 1 (a), however, is the sole contesting defendant. He filed his written statement and examined himself is D. W. No. 1. No other witnesses were examined on his behalf. Defts. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 filed their joint written statement but did not examine any witness on their behalf. The plaintiff examined five witnesses of whom P. W. 1 was the plaintiff himself, P. W. 2 was a witness to the agreement dated 15-6-1967 as well as to the execution of the sale deed dated 20-6-1967, P. W. 4 was the scribe, P. W. 3 was a clerk of the Registration office, Belangir who only produced the document to prove registration of the impugned sale deed and P. W. 5 was a clerk of the Notified Area Council who proved the mutation in favour of the pla
AI
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
