9911796707
TMI Blog1951 (9) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tire consideration money to defendant No. 1, but the latter never made over the registered sale-deed to him in spite of demands. The plaintiff, however, it is said, came into possession of the entire plot and amalgamated 15 dhurs out of it with his house. The remaining 1 katha which is in dispute was used by him as his bari, but the defendants dispossessed him from it on 1st Asarh 1353 Fs. (June 1946). The suit was instituted on 6th July 1946. 3. The defendants belong to the same family of which the defendant No. 1 is the head. Their defence is that the real consideration of the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff, executed by defendant No. 1, was ₹ 170/- though only ₹ 100/-was mentioned in the deed, and that the plaintiff pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was not admissible to prove that the consideration of the sale-deed in question was ₹ 170/- and not ₹ 100/-. But he held that out of the consideration of ₹ 100/- the plaintiff paid ₹ 70/- only to defendant No. 1. He also held that the Intention of the parties was that title to the land would pass on payment of the entire consideration and as the entire, consideration was not paid, the plaintiff did not acquire any title to the disputed land. He further held that the plaintiff never came into possession of any portion of plot No. 1169 by virtue of the sale-deed, but came into possession of only 14 1/2 dhurs out of it, sometime later as a result of the panchyati alleged by the defendants. He, however, did not accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he vended land." These recitals clearly indicate that title would pass and possession would be delivered on payment "of the whole and entire consideration money." In the cases in 'Rasikananda v. Gangadhar', 1 Cut L T 1; 'Md. Murtaza v. Abdul Rahman', 27 Pat 122 and 'Motilal Sahu v. Ugrah Narain Sahu', AIR (37) 1950 Pat 288, already cited, the sale-deeds were similarly worded and it was held that the intention of the parties was that the passing of title should depend on the passing of consideration. In the last two cases it was also held that if the terms of the sale-deed were ambiguous, the Court might also take into consideration the facts that the vendor retained the sale deed and never made it ove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded property it will be illegal and null and void in Court." But this recital obviously means that the vendor would not put forward any claim for the consideration money; in other words, it would not be open to him to dispute the correctness of the recital that he received the consideration money. As pointed out in 'Radhamohan v. Bipin Behari', 17 Pat 318 and in 'Md. Murtaza v. Abdul Rahman', 27 Pat 122 that in spite Of such recital, it would be open to the parties to show that it was incorrect. 10. Mr. Misra then relies on the following recital in the sale deed : "Should, on account of any act done by me the executant there be found any kind of defect on the vendee viz. the claimant be put to any trouble and l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id the bulb of the consideration of the sale deed, the defendants ought to have performed their part of the contract. But this is not a suit for specific performance and the plaintiff never suggested in his plaint that he was ready and willing to pay the balance of the consideration money. On the contrary, his case was that he paid the entire consideration and came into possession of the entire vended property. It is important to notice that the suit was instituted more than three years after registration of the sale deed. 12. Mr. Misra further contends that the learned Subordinate Judge in view of the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, should not have at all taken into consideration the award of the panches by reason of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
