9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of S. 55 (4) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act in relation to the entitlement of possession to the seller in default of payment of purchase-money. Analysis: The case involved an appeal arising from a suit filed by the respondent for possession of one-third share in a property or recovery of the consideration amount. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, despite admitting the sale transaction, did not pay the consideration amount and dispossessed him. The trial court found that the consideration was not paid but still gave a decree for the amount to the plaintiff, allowing possession if the defendant failed to pay. The appellate court upheld this decision, leading to the second appeal. In the second appeal, the appellant's counsel argued that the decrees for possession were erroneous, citing S. 55 (4) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act and relevant case laws. The respondent's counsel contended that the decrees were justified as the plaintiff sought possession. However, the court disagreed with this argument, emphasizing that under S. 55 (4) (b), the seller is entitled to a charge on the property in case of non-payment, not possession. The court referenced past judgments to support this interpretation, highlighting that the seller's right is limited to a charge, not possession. Referring to a Privy Council case, the court reiterated that the seller's entitlement is a charge on the property, enforceable through sale, not possession. Therefore, the court concluded that the lower courts erred in granting possession to the plaintiff and modified the decrees accordingly. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and decreeing the suit for the consideration amount, with the plaintiff having a charge on the property in default of payment. The appellant was awarded costs throughout.
|
