Back
2018 Supreme(Ori) 20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Samanta Umesh Prasad Dhir and others - Appellants
Versus
Sahadev Sahoo - Respondent
S.A. No. 242 of 1987
Decided On : 11-05-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Ram Chandra Rath
For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Agarwal
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Sale of Property Act, title can pass to the purchaser even if the full sale price has not been paid, and the intention of the parties as evidenced by the sale deed is crucial in determining the passing of title.
Headnote:
Fraud - Property Dispute - Registration Act, 1882 - Section 54, Section 55(4)(b) - Sale deed, title passing, consideration payment - Kaliaperumal vs. Rajagopal and another (2009) 4 SCC 193, Michhu Kuanr and others vs. Raghu Jena and others, AIR 1961 Ori. 19, Umakanta Das and another vs. Pradip Kumar Ray and others, AIR 1986 Ori. 196
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs appealed against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. The plaintiffs claimed to be owners of the suit lands, while the defendant claimed to have purchased the lands through a sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed (Ext.3) was valid and that title had passed to the defendant. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, holding that they failed to prove fraud or lack of consideration in the execution of the sale deed.
Issues: The issues included whether title passed to the defendant under the sale deed, whether the transaction constituted a sale in the absence of full consideration payment, and whether mutation entries conferred title upon the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the Sale of Property Act, specifically Section 54 and Section 55(4)(b), and cited relevant case law to determine that title had passed to the defendant under the sale deed, even in the absence of full consideration payment.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found it to be without merit.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Rath, J.
This is plaintiffs’ appeal against a confirming judgment. The suit was for declaration of title and confirmation of possession.
2. The case of the plaintiffs was that they are owners of the suit lands. The defendant was their god-son. Taking advantage of the relationship, the defendant persuaded them to allow him to cultivate the suit lands to protect them from the clutches of intruders on execution of the document in his favour. In good faith, they agreed to execute a registered agreement with the condition that the defendant would cultivate the same for a period of three years on payment of Rs.1000/- per year towards Rajbhag to them. It was further agreed that the defendant would pay Rs.400/- in advance to be adjusted from the Rajbhag of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, they with their son Umesh executed the document on 6.3.74 in favour of the defendant. The document was scribed by the defendant. They signed on it and their son attested it. The contents thereof were not read over to them. The ticket for return of the document was retained with them. The defendant agreed to pay advance of Rs.400/- within a few days. The defendant took possession of the suit lands on the very day. The defendant had remitted Rs.50/- only. The defendant did not pay the rest amount. While matter stood thus, on 27.5.77 the plaintiff no.1 obtained the original deed from the Sub-Registrar’s Office and came to know that the same was out and out a sale deed, but not agreement. Thereafter, they cancelled the deed on 22.6.77 and took possession of the suit lands. The defendant threatened to create troubles in their possession. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.
3. The defendant entered contest and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendant was that the plaintiffs resided at a distance of about 30 miles away from the suit lands. Lot no.1 of the suit plot was full of shrubs. The same was Anabadi land. Lot no.2 was arable. The suit lands were not profitable. The plaintiffs intended to sale the same. In 1974, he approached them for purchase of the suit lands. The plaintiffs agreed to sell the same for a consideration of Rs.1000/- and received Rs.415/- towards part consideration from him. The plaintiffs executed the registered sale deed dated 6.3.1974 in his favour and delivered possession. The balance consideration of Rs.585/- was agreed to be paid at the time of endorsement of ticket in his favour, though the same was never intended to operate against passing of title. In the last part of 1974, he paid arrear rent of Rs.335/- to the plaintiffs and adjusted it towards balance consideration. The plaintiff no.1 promised to come to his village and agreed to clear up, if any other arrear rent from out of the remaining consideration of Rs.250/- and to endorse the tickets in his favour. The plaintiff no.1 did not keep his promise. He ascertained that a sum of Rs.200/- was in arrears upto 1973-74 and paid the same adjusting towards the balance consideration. A sum of Rs.50/- was due to be paid to the plaintiffs towards consideration. The same was remitted to the plaintiff no.1 by money order. In December, 1975, he approached the plaintiffs for endorsing the ticket in his name, but they took the plea that the same was lost in the devastating floods of 1975. The plaintiffs’ son Umesh approached him in the year 1981 for payment of extra money, but he refused to pay. The plaintiffs fraudulently cancelled the sale deed. The cancellation deed does not affect his title and possession of the suit lands.
4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck five issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their case. Learned trial court dismissed the suit with the findings that the plaintiffs had no authority to cancel the sale deed, Ext.3 by means of Ext.1. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the documen
