Registered sale deed and mortgage redemption rights are protected when timely tender is refused and court deposit is not mandatory.

A registered sale deed completed title in favour of the vendee where the balance price was timely tendered and the vendor refused acceptance; the vendor's later cancellation deed and resale could not defeat the purchaser's rights. The document also states that a redemption suit is not barred for lack of prior court deposit of mortgage money, because the Transfer of Property Act provides alternative modes of redemption, including private tender, court deposit, and suit for redemption. On that basis, the earlier transaction was treated as a redeemable mortgage by conditional sale and the concurrent decree for the respondents was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether title under the registered sale deed passed to the vendee before the vendor executed the cancellation deed and a subsequent sale deed in favour of another purchaser; and (ii) whether a suit for redemption of the earlier mortgage could fail for want of prior deposit of the mortgage money in court.

Issue (i): whether title under the registered sale deed passed to the vendee before the vendor executed the cancellation deed and a subsequent sale deed in favour of another purchaser

Analysis: The sale deed showed that the balance of consideration was payable at the time of exchange of equivalents and that the vendor was to hand over the registration receipt at that stage. On the evidence accepted by both courts below, the vendee tendered the balance amount within time and the vendor refused to accept it. Section 55(5)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act obliged the buyer to pay or tender the purchase money at the time and place of completion, and did not require a court deposit where the seller refused tender. The refusal by the vendor could not defeat the vendee's rights by a later cancellation and resale.

Conclusion: Title passed to the vendee before the cancellation deed and the subsequent sale deed, and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): whether a suit for redemption of the earlier mortgage could fail for want of prior deposit of the mortgage money in court

Analysis: The mortgagor had alternative remedies under the Transfer of Property Act: private tender under Section 60, deposit in court under Section 83, or a suit for redemption under Section 91. The statute did not make prior deposit in court a condition precedent to maintain a redemption suit. The earlier deed was also treated as a mortgage by conditional sale and redeemable.

Conclusion: The redemption decree was sustainable, and the objection based on non-deposit of mortgage money was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety, and the concurrent decree in favour of the respondents was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the terms of a sale deed require completion on exchange of equivalents, a timely tender of the balance consideration coupled with the vendor's refusal completes the purchaser's title, and a redemption suit is not barred merely because the mortgage money was not deposited in court when the statute provides alternative modes of redemption.

---