9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellants had paid Rs. 17,000/- towards the sale price to the second respondent. 2. Whether title to the property passed to the appellants on execution of the sale deed. 3. Whether the second respondent-vendor was justified in canceling/repudiating the sale on the ground that the sale consideration was not paid. 4. Whether the appellants are entitled to the relief claimed in the suit. Detailed Analysis: Re: Question (i) The appellants claimed they paid Rs. 17,000 at the time of the sale deed's registration, with the remaining Rs. 5,000 to be paid later. However, their evidence was inconsistent with their pleadings. Witnesses for the appellants testified that the Rs. 17,000 was paid at the first plaintiff's residence before going to the Sub-Registrar's office, which contradicted the pleadings. The first appellate court rejected this evidence, noting the lack of endorsement by the Sub-Registrar and the absence of a separate receipt for the Rs. 17,000 payment. The court found the testimony of the second respondent and other defense witnesses credible, who stated that no payment was made at the time of the sale deed's execution. The High Court affirmed this finding, and the Supreme Court found no valid ground to interfere with this factual determination. Re: Questions (ii) and (iii) The court examined whether title passed upon the execution and registration of the sale deed, considering the intention of the parties. The sale deed recited that the entire consideration was paid, and possession was delivered. However, evidence showed that the registration receipt and possession were retained by the vendor, indicating that the title was intended to pass only upon full payment. The practice of "ta khubzul badlain" in Bihar, where title passes only upon the exchange of the registration receipt for the full consideration, was recognized. Given that the appellants did not pay the full consideration, the title did not pass to them. The vendor was justified in canceling the sale deed due to non-payment. Re: Question (iv) Since the appellants failed to pay the full sale consideration before the vendor's repudiation, they were not entitled to claim performance of the sale. The sale deed dated 22.2.1988 did not convey any title to the appellants, and the subsequent sale to the first respondent was valid. Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants did not establish payment of the sale consideration, and therefore, title did not pass to them. The vendor's cancellation of the sale was justified, and the appellants were not entitled to the relief claimed. The practice of "ta khubzul badlain" in Bihar was a significant factor in determining the intention of the parties and the passing of title.
|
