TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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 buyer's statutory charge over the property for the advance amount paid under the agreement continued on the date of suit and could be enforced. (ii) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the advance amount, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Issue (i): Whether the buyer's statutory charge over the property for the advance amount paid under the agreement continued on the date of suit and could be enforced.
Analysis: The agreement treated time as essential and the defendants had expressed readiness to complete the sale within the stipulated period. The Court held that a buyer's charge under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 arises on payment of purchase money and ordinarily continues until conveyance, but it is lost if the buyer is in default or improperly declines delivery. On the facts, the plaintiffs remained inactive for years despite the defendants' readiness to perform, and their conduct amounted to default in accepting performance.
Conclusion: The statutory charge was lost because of the plaintiffs' own default and could not be enforced by them.
Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the advance amount, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The Court held that Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs a suit to enforce charge and provides a 12-year period, so the trial court was incorrect in treating the claim as barred by a three-year limitation. However, the substantive claim still failed because the plaintiffs had lost the benefit of the statutory charge by their own default. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was also noticed to reiterate that an agreement for sale by itself does not create an interest in property.
Conclusion: The suit was not barred by a three-year limitation, but the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the amount, so the decree dismissing the suit was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits because the plaintiffs' default extinguished their enforceable charge, and the dismissal of the suit was confirmed despite correction of the trial court's limitation reasoning.
Ratio Decidendi: A buyer's statutory charge for purchase money under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 continues only so long as the buyer is not in default and does not improperly refuse delivery; if the buyer defaults, the charge is lost, and the claim to recover the amount cannot be enforced on that basis.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
