JANAK DULARI DEVI & ANR. versus KAPILDEO RAI & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 6 S.C.R. 96 · Decided: 15-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011) 6 S.C.R. 96 
JANAK DULARI DEVI & ANR. 
v. 
KAPILDEO RAI & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4422 of 2002) 
APRIL 15, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - ss. 8 and 54 - Sale of 
immovable property - Passing of title - Suit for specific 
C performance by purchaser seeking decree for a direction to 
vendor to deliver the registration receipt in regard to sale 
deed by receiving the balance consideration -
Vendor 
alleging that the purchaser did not pay any part of the 
consideration and as such he cancelled the sale deed and 
o sold the property to the subsequent purchaser - Trial court 
decreed the suit in favour of the purchaser holding that the 
purchaser had proved payment of part sale price to vendor 
and on execution of sale deed by the seller, title passed to 
the purchaser - First appellate court as also the High Court 
E dismissed the suit - On appeal, held: Intention of the parties 
was that title would not pass until the consideration was not 
paid - As the consideration was not paid, the sale in favour 
of the purchaser did not come into effect and the title 
remained with the vendor and the sale deed was a dead letter 
F - Thus, the subsequent sale in favour of the subsequent 
purchaser was valid -
Vendor retained the power of 
repudiating the sale for non-payment of the sale price within 
a reasonable time and after lawful repudiation, the purchaser 
was not entitled to claim performance. 
G 
Property laws - Practice of exchanging equivalents- 'ta 
khubzul badlain' - Prevalent in the State of Bihar- Explained. 
It was the appellant's case that second respondent- · 
owner of the property executed a sale deed in respect of 
H 
96 
JANAK DULARI DEVI & ANR. v. KAPILDEO RAI & 
97 
ANR. 
the suit property in the appellant's favour for a A 
consideration of Rs.22,000/-; that the appellants paid 
Rs.17,000/- to the second respondent, at the time of 
execution and registration of sale deed; and that the 
second respondent retained the registration receipt of the 
sale deed, agreeing to deliver it to the appellants against 
B 
payment of the 
balance 
sale 
consideration. 
Subsequently, the second respondent avoided receiving 
the balance of Rs.5000/- and failed to deliver the 
registration receipt as also denied the receipt of 
Rs.17,000/-. The appellants filed a suit for specific c 
performance against the second respondent. They 
sought a decree for a direction to the second respondent 
to deliver the registration receipt relating to the sale deed 
by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.5000/-
. The second respondent contended that as the 0 
appellants failed to pay the sale consideration, he 
cancelled the said sale deed and sold the property to the 
first respondent for a consideration of Rs.19,000/- and 
also delivered possession of the property. Thereafter, the 
first respondent was impleaded as the second defendant 
E 
in the suit. The trial court decreed the suit holding that 
the appellants had proved the payment of part sale price 
of Rs.17000/- to second respondent; that on the 
execution of the sale deed by the second respondent, 
title passed to the appellants and the appellants were 
entitled to declaration of title and recovery of possession. 
F 
The first respondent filed an appeal. The first appellate 
court allowed the same holding that the appellants had 
failed to prove payment of Rs.17,000/- and that as a result 
thereof, the second respondent was justified in 
cancelling the sale deed and selling the property to the 
G 
first respondent. The appellants then filed a second 
appeal and the same was dismissed. Therefore, the 
appellants flied the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
98 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1 The first appellate court after analyzing the 
evidence held that the evidence was contrary to the 
pleadings that a sum of Rs.17 ,0001· was paid to the 
defendant at the residence of the first plaintiff, that 
thereafter, they went to the Sub-Registrar's office and got 
B the sale deed written by the scribe-PW5, and that 
thereafter, the second respondent executed the sale 
deed and got it registered; and therefore, liable to be 
rejected. When what Is pleaded is not proved, or what Is 
stated in the evidence is contrary to the pleadings, the 
c dictum that no amount of evidence, contrary to the 
pleadings, howsoever cogent, can be relied on, would 
apply. The first appellate court al

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.