Unpaid sale consideration and statutory charge: seller's right upheld where the buyer failed to prove payment and evidence was misread.

The buyer failed to prove payment of the claimed balance sale consideration because the documentary record and account materials showed only part payment, and the disputed receipt was not reliable. The court applied the burden of proof principle and held that, once payment was specifically denied and supporting materials were produced, the burden shifted to the defendant to establish discharge, which she did not do. It also found the first appellate court had misread the evidence and improperly disturbed the trial court's reasoned findings. As the purchase money remained unpaid, the seller was entitled to a statutory charge over the flat for the unpaid balance under Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the defendant proved payment of the alleged balance amount of Rs. 3,19,970 and whether the first appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's findings on appreciation of evidence. (ii) Whether the plaintiff seller was entitled to a charge over the flat under Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 for the unpaid purchase money.

Issue (i): Whether the defendant proved payment of the alleged balance amount of Rs. 3,19,970 and whether the first appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's findings on appreciation of evidence.

Analysis: The agreement, sale deed, receipts and account materials showed that the defendant had paid only part of the agreed consideration. The disputed receipt did not inspire confidence, as the defendant's version about payment through cheques was contradicted by her later stand that the amount was paid in cash, and no supporting cheque or receipt evidence was produced. Applying the burden of proof principle, the Court held that once the plaintiff had challenged the alleged payment and produced materials to support the claim for balance dues, the burden shifted to the defendant to prove payment, which she failed to discharge. The first appellate court was found to have misread the evidence and wrongly interfered with the trial court's reasoned findings.

Conclusion: The defendant failed to prove payment of Rs. 3,19,970, and the first appellate court's contrary view was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff seller was entitled to a charge over the flat under Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 for the unpaid purchase money.

Analysis: Since the purchase money remained unpaid, the seller was entitled to a statutory charge on the property for the amount remaining due. The Court held that the plaintiff's claim for recovery of the unpaid balance was supported by the contract and the proved non-payment, and therefore the statutory charge followed by operation of law.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to a charge over the flat for the unpaid purchase money.

Final Conclusion: The second appeal succeeded, the lower appellate court's judgment and decree were set aside, and the trial court's decree was restored, with the defendant further directed to make payment as ordered by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the buyer fails to prove payment of the balance sale consideration, the seller is entitled to a statutory charge on the property for the unpaid purchase money, and an appellate court cannot disturb reasoned findings by misreading the evidence.

---