BISHUNDEO NARAIN RAI (DEAD) BY LRS. versus ANMOL DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 66 · Decided: 20-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BISHUNDEO NARAIN RAI (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
ANMOL DEVI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 20, 1998 
B 
(K. VENKATASWAMI AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED 
QUADRI, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 : Sections 8 and 54. 
C 
Immovable property-Sale of-Sale deed-Constmction of-Execution 
and Registration-Ownership and interest-Title to purchasers-Passing 
of-Held, on execution and registration of sale deed of immovable property 
of Rs. JOO and mere ownership, all interest and title in the prope1ty passes to 
the purchaser unless contrmy intention is expressed in the sale deed--Recitals 
in the sale deed do not show any rese1vation regarding passing of title to the 
D purclwse1~Default and delay in payment of m01tgage money cannot be 
constnted as non-payment of sale consideration-Non-delive1y of registration 
receipt by vendor to purchaser does not indicate an intention to imerdict 
passing of title to lhe purchase1~Evidence Act, 1872, S.92. 
E 
The appellants-plaintiffs, the first purchaser purchased a piece of 
land from the Vendors, respondents-defendants under a registered· sale 
deed. The sale deed stipulated that the respondents sold the property for 
a sale consideration of Rs. 15,000 out of which a sum of Rs. 6,249 was kept 
in deposit with the appellants as being payable to the mortgagees, a sum 
of Rs. 516 which was due by the respondents to the appellants to be 
F adjusted against the sale consideration and a sum of Rs. 8,235 was to be 
paid in cash to the respondents; that the appellants were to keep lhe 
documents clearing the debt with themselves along with the' sale deed and 
that the respondents had put the appellants in possession and occupation 
of the property. 
G 
The vendors respondents cancelled the said sale deed and executed 
a second sale deed in favour of subsequent purchasers on the grounds that 
out of the sale consideration a sum of Rs. 3,235 remained unpaid; that the 
mortgage was not redeemed and. that the registration receipt was retained 
by the respondents and so it was manifest that the intention of the parties 
H was that the title would not pass to the purchaser on execution and 
66 
BISI-IUNDEO NARAIN RA! v. ANMOL DEVI 
67 
registration of the sale deed. 
A 
Being aggrieved the appellants filed the suit against the vendors 
respondents praying for a declaration that the deed cancelling his sale deed 
and the subsequent sale deed are illegal and void and for a decree against 
the vendor to deliver to hill)- the original sale deed executed in his favour. 
The trial court found that a sum of Rs. 3,235 remained unpaid and per-
B 
mitted the appellants to redeem the mortgage and decree the suit. The 
appellants had deposited the mortgage amount and redeemed the 
mortgage. In appeal, the High Court found that only a sum of Rs. 235 
remained unpaid which was also deposited in court and thus the entire sale 
consideration was paid by the appellants. However, the High Court held C 
that the title in the property sold did not pass to the appellants as the 
registration receipt was kept with the vendors-respondents and set aside 
the judgment of the trial Court. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. A combined reading of Sections 8 and 54 of the Transfer 
of Property Act, 1882, suggests that though on execution and registration 
of a sale deed, the ownership title and all interests in the property pass to 
the transferee, yet that would be on the terms and conditions embodied in 
D 
the deed indicating the intention of the parties. It follows that on execution . E 
and registration of a sale deed, the ownership title and all interests in the 
property pass to the purchaser unless a different intention is either ex-
pressed or necessarily implied "."hich has to be proved by the party assert-
ing that title has not passedpn registration ofthe sale deed. Such intention 
can be gathered by intrinsic evidence, namely, from the averments in the 
. sale deed itself or by other attending circumstances subject, of course, to 
F 
the provisions of Section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872. [72-D-F] 
2. It appears that in the State of Bihar a practice is prevalent that 
when whole or part of sale consideration is due or any other obligation is 
undertaken by the vendee then on execution and registration of the sale 
deed by the vendor, title to the property, the subject-matter of sale, does not G 
pass 'ta khubzul Badlain', that is, until there is 'exchange of equivalent' and 
in such a case registration receipt
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.