1933 (11) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... espect of the house for a consideration of ₹ 900. It is stated that ₹ 300 of the consideration money was left with the plaintiff for redemption of the mortgage, that ₹ 175 was set off against debts due from defendant 1 to the plaintiff, and that the balance of ₹ 125 was paid to defendant 1 in cash. The sale deed was registered on the following day, i e. 16th May 1927, but a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , that defendant 1 then sold the house to defendant 2 by a deed which was registered on 27th May 1927, eleven days after the registration of the plaintiff's deed. 3. It is alleged by the defence that this deed had actually been executed on 20th April, that is to say, prior to the plaintiff's deed, for a consideration of ₹ 550, ₹ 150 of which was paid to the vendor in cash, w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... very unregistered document relating to the same property. It is quite obvious that the section has no application to the facts of the present case where the defendant's document is a registered one. It is contended however that on 27th May, when the deed in favour, of the defendant was registered, the vendor had no interest in the property because the plaintiff's deed, having been register .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ey had been paid. 6. It has now been found as a fact that the consideration money had not been paid. The clause relied upon therefore does not, in view of the retention of the deed by the vendor, lead to the conclusion that title was to pass irrespective of the payment of consideration. The Court of appeal below has held that the defendant's deed operated to transfer to him title to the pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... late Court. The appellate Court however has found that the defendant was in possession under his deed by receipt of rent from the person in occupation of the house. There is therefore no substance in this point. 8. Lastly it is contended that the Court of appeal below has not dealt with the finding of the first Court that the defendant's sale-deed was ante-dated. It is clear however from th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X