TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the suit property was the self-acquired property of defendant No. 3 or joint family property; (ii) Whether title under the sale deed passed on execution and registration notwithstanding non-payment of consideration.
Issue (i): Whether the suit property was the self-acquired property of defendant No. 3 or joint family property.
Analysis: The finding of the lower appellate court that the property was joint family property was held unsustainable because it rested on surmise and conjecture rather than appreciation of the evidence. The evidence that the property had been purchased with money supplied by the maternal uncle was accepted, and the trial court's finding that the property was self-acquired was restored.
Conclusion: The property was held to be the self-acquired property of defendant No. 3.
Issue (ii): Whether title under the sale deed passed on execution and registration notwithstanding non-payment of consideration.
Analysis: The sale deed was found to be clear and unambiguous, so its effect had to be gathered from its terms alone. Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, title passes on execution and registration of the sale deed, and a valid sale may exist even where consideration is deferred. The deed expressly stated that the vendees would enjoy the property as owners from the date of execution.
Conclusion: Title was held to have passed to the vendees on execution and registration of the sale deed notwithstanding non-payment of consideration.
Final Conclusion: The plaintiffs' challenge failed because the property was self-acquired and the sale deed effectively transferred title to the appellants, entitling them to succeed in the second appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a sale deed is clear and unambiguous, its legal effect must be gathered from its own terms, and title passes on execution and registration under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act even if consideration is deferred.
TaxTMI 
