9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1291 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyCIRP - Bona fide Home Buyers of the Villa - purchase by way of Agreement of Sale and Construction Agreement , dated 12.07.2011, executed by M/s. Samruddhi Realty Limited / Corporate Debtor , after having paid the whole Sale Consideration , and after securing Possession - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In the instant case on hand, it is crystalline clear that No Security Interest , is created to and in favour of the Appellants / Petitioners , considering the fact that admittedly, no Registered Sale Deed , was executed , by the Appellants / Petitioners and the Corporate Debtor . It cannot be disputed that the Appellants / Petitioners , are in Possession of the Property , in a permissive manner, because of the latent and patent fact that the Corporate Debtor , gave the key of the Villa to the Appellants / Petitioners , so as to enable them to start the Interior Work , and that the Appellants / Petitioners , had incurred an Expenditure of Rs.4,63,000/-, in this regard - It cannot be gainsaid that only the Assets , that are charged as Security Interest(s) , will fall outside the ambit of Liquidation Proceedings . Furthermore, this Tribunal , bears in mind that the Ownership of the Subject Property , rests with the Corporate Debtor . Also, it cannot be brushed aside the Appellants / Petitioners , had in Form G , preferred a Claim of Rs.6,65,191/- for the remaining work , to be completed in the Subject Property . It cannot be gainsaid that in respect of a Sale of an Immovable Property , which is in Value of more than Rs.100/- , it is to be compulsorily Registered , as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal . One cannot remain in oblivion of the primordial fact that the term Conveys in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 , only meant for conveying Ownership , which visualises a Completion , only in respect of an Execution and Registration of the valid Deed of Conveyance . This Tribunal , keeping in mind of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a careful consideration of respective contentions, advanced on either side, without haziness , comes to a resultant conclusion, that to and in favour of the Appellants / Petitioners , No Security Interest , is created, especially, the admitted fact being, no Registered Sale Deed , was executed , and as such, no relief(s) , can be granted to the Appellants / Petitioners . Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of Schedule B property from the Liquidation Estate. 2. Execution and registration of the Sale Deed for Schedule B property. 3. Completion of remaining works on Schedule B property. 4. Refund of excess sum paid towards the Sale Consideration. 5. Award of costs of the appeal. Summary: 1. Exclusion of Schedule B Property from Liquidation Estate: The Appellants sought to exclude Schedule B property from the Liquidation Estate of the Corporate Debtor, arguing they were bona fide home buyers who had paid the full sale consideration and taken possession. The Tribunal observed that only assets charged as security interest fall outside the Liquidation proceedings. Since no security interest was created in favor of the Appellants and no Sale Deed was executed, the property remains part of the Liquidation Estate. 2. Execution and Registration of Sale Deed: The Appellants requested the execution and registration of the Sale Deed for Schedule B property. The Tribunal noted that a mere agreement to sell or possession does not amount to ownership. The title does not pass until registration is effected. The Tribunal cited precedents, emphasizing that an agreement of sale without a registered deed does not confer title or transfer interest in immovable property. 3. Completion of Remaining Works: The Appellants sought the completion of remaining works on Schedule B property. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Appellants had incurred expenses for interior work and had possession since 2016. However, it reiterated that ownership rests with the Corporate Debtor in the absence of a registered Sale Deed. 4. Refund of Excess Sum Paid: The Appellants requested a refund of the excess sum paid towards the Sale Consideration. The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue in the judgment, focusing instead on the broader question of ownership and exclusion from the Liquidation Estate. 5. Award of Costs: The Appellants sought costs for the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal flaws in the Adjudicating Authority's order and did not award any costs. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that no security interest was created in favor of the Appellants, and the property remains part of the Liquidation Estate. The pending connected IA No. 807 of 2023 (For Stay) was also closed.
|
