9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of 1 katha of land. Dispute over consideration money in a registered sale-deed. Intention of parties regarding passing of title based on payment of full consideration. Admissibility of oral evidence to prove consideration amount. Possession and title transfer based on sale-deed terms. Interpretation of sale-deed recitals. Performance of contract obligations. Relevance of panchayati award in possession dispute. Analysis: The plaintiff appealed for declaration of title and possession of 1 katha land from a registered sale-deed. Plaintiff claimed full payment but no possession. Defendants argued partial payment and no title transfer until full consideration. Munsiff decreed in favor of plaintiff, finding defendants barred from proving higher consideration under Section 92 Evidence Act and acknowledging plaintiff's payment and subsequent dispossession. On appeal, Subordinate Judge agreed oral evidence inadmissible for consideration dispute. Held plaintiff paid partially, no title transfer without full payment. Disputed possession and subsequent panchayati award. Appeal allowed, suit dismissed based on intention of parties regarding consideration and possession transfer. Central issue: Whether title passed on sale-deed execution or full payment. Precedents like 'Rasikananda Mallick v. Gangadhar Panda' and 'Radhamohan Thakur v. Bipin Behari Mitra' considered. Sale-deed recitals crucial; possession and title transfer linked to full consideration payment. Subordinate Judge's findings on payment, possession, and sale-deed terms upheld, leading to dismissal of appeal. Sale-deed recitals key: Recitals indicated title transfer on full payment, possession delivery. Precedents supported this interpretation. Plaintiff's partial payment insufficient for title transfer. Defendant's recitals on consideration claim and possession loss not altering title transfer condition based on sale-deed terms. Performance of contract: Plaintiff's obligation to pay full consideration for title transfer emphasized. Suit not for specific performance, no readiness to pay balance shown. Delay in instituting suit post-sale deed registration noted. Panchayati award relevance: Subordinate Judge's consideration of panchayati award justified as no dispute over 14 1/2 dhurs possession. Award not affecting main possession dispute resolution. Subordinate Judge's decision upheld, appeal dismissed with costs. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the intention of parties regarding consideration payment and title transfer based on sale-deed terms. Sale-deed recitals, payment details, and possession transfer crucial in determining title transfer. Subordinate Judge's decision upheld, dismissing the appeal.
|
