Key Points: - (!) Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali held that non-payment of entire sale consideration cannot alone cancel a Sale Deed; remedy is recovery of balance consideration, not cancellation. - (!) Vidyadhar v. Manikrao clarifies that non-payment of part of the price does not void the sale where the deed is executed and registered; title passes; remedy is to seek payment. - (!) The court held that the appropriate remedy for non-payment is recovery of the sale consideration, not avoidance of the Sale Deed. - (!) Sections 91 and 92 IPC (IInd) of the Indian Evidence Act render oral evidence contrary to written covenants inadmissible when the sale deed contains covenants about payment. - (!) The District Judge's finding that the agreement lacked consideration was erroneous; there was an agreement to pay Rs 7,25,000, and the issue is non-payment, not absence of consideration. - (!) Impugned judgment cancelling the Sale Deed is set aside; the suit is dismissed, with direction to pay/deposit Rs 7,25,000 plus interest. - (!) The appellate order directs payment/deposit of the full sale consideration with interest from the date of the deed until payment. - (!) It is admitted that the sale deed was registered and possession handed over, with sale consideration claimed via two cheques not encashed. - (!) Plaintiff alleged non-receipt of sale consideration; Defendants alleged cheques were handed over but not encashed. - (!) Appeal allowed; pending applications disposed of.

How to determine whether non-payment or non-receipt of sale consideration can be a ground to cancel a registered Sale Deed under the Transfer of Property Act?

What is the correct remedy when sale consideration is not fully paid, according to the Supreme Court precedent cited (Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali)?

How to apply Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act with regard to written covenants in a sale deed when there is a dispute about payment of sale consideration?