KALIAPERUMAL versus RAJAGOPAL & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 814 · Decided: 20-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 814 
A 
KALIAPERUMAL 
Y·-~
v 
RAJAGOPAL & ANR. 
Civil Appeal No. 5800 of 2002 
B 
FEBRUARY 20, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 : 
ss.54 and 55(4)(b) - Sale - Intention of the parties -
t 
c Determination of - Registration of deed - Effect of - Held: 
Though registration is prima facie proof of an intention to 
transfer the property, it is not proof of operative transfer if 
payment of consideration (price) is condition precedent for 
passing of the property - On facts, the parties intended that 
D ownership of property would be transferred to appellant only 
after receipt of entire consideration by respondent-vendors, 
as condition precedent - The title was intended to pass only 
on payment of balance consideration of Rs. 40, 0001- in 
presence of Sub-Registrar - However, no amount was tendered 
E or paid by appellant to respondents in presence of Sub-
Registrar - Therefore, the title in fact did not pass either on 
execution or registration of sale deed - The title was intended 
to pass only after payment of full price, which is further 
confirmed from the fact that though the sale deed recited that 
·~ 
F 
the purchaser was entitled to hold, possess and enjoy the 
scheduled properties from date of sale, neither possession of 
the properties nor title deeds were delivered to appellant either 
on date of sale or thereafter - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.92. 
Appellant filed suit contending that he acquired title 
G to the suit properties when the sale deed entered between 
him and the respondents-vendor was duly registered and 
l . 
sought entitlement to declaration of his title as well as 
... 
"\ 
possession of the suit properties. The respondents 
contended that as the appellant had not paid the balance 
H 
814 
KALIAPERUMAL V. RAJAGOPAL & ANR. 
815 
~·-'!' 
consideration of Rs.40,000/- as mentioned in the sale deed, A 
the title never passed to the appellant and therefore, the 
suit for declaration of title to the suit properties and 
possession thereof was not maintainable. The trial court 
decreed the suit. The first appellate court also held that 
title of the appellant to the suit properties was established B 
in view of the execution of sale deed and its registration, 
~ 
but held that the appellant was entitled to possession only 
.., 
on deposit of Rs.40,000/-. Respondents filed second 
appeal. The High Court set aside the decree passed in 
favour of the appellant and dismissed the suit filed by him. c 
In appeal to this Court, the question which arose for 
consideration was whether title to the disputed properties 
passed on to the appellant when the sale deed was 
registered. 
A, 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. Sale is defined as being a transfer of 
ownership for a price. In a sale there is an absolute transfer 
of all rights in the properties sold. No rights are left in the 
transferor. The price is fixed by the contract antecedent E 
to the conveyance. Price is the essence of a contract of sale. 
There is only one mode of transfer by sale in regard to 
-+ 
immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- or more and 
-
that is by a registered instrument. [Para 8] [821; 822-H] 
1.2. Payment of entire price is not a condition F 
precedent for completion of the sale by passing of title, 
as s.54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines 'sale' as 
a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or 
promised or part paid and part promised. If the intention 
of parties was that title should pass on execution and G 
.. 
-A: 
registration, title would pass to the purchaser even if the 
sale price or part thereof is not paid. In the event of non-
payment of price (or balance price as the case may be) 
thereafter, the remedy of the vendor is only to sue for the 
balance price. He cannot avoid the sale. He is, however, H 
816 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
entitled to a charge upon the property for the unpaid part 
'l-
of the sale price where the ownership of the property has 
passed to the buyer before payment of the entire price, 
under s.55(4)(b) of the Act. Normally, ownership and title 
to the property will pass to the purchaser on registration 
B of the sale deed with effect from the date of execution of 
the sale deed. But this is not an invariable rule, as the true 
test of passing of property is the intention of parties. [Para 
8) [822-8-C] 
c 
1.3. Though registration is prima facie proof of an 
intention to transfer th

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