<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (2) TMI 825 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178046</link>
    <description>Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, ownership in immovable property ordinarily passes on sale for a price paid, promised, or partly paid and partly promised, and registration is strong but not conclusive evidence of transfer. Where the sale deed and surrounding circumstances show that payment of the balance consideration was intended as a condition precedent, title does not pass until that condition is met. The recitals here required payment before the Sub-Registrar, no such payment was made, possession was not delivered, and the purchaser had not shown readiness to pay the balance. On that basis, ownership was held not to have passed on registration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2023 18:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414297" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 825 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178046</link>
      <description>Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, ownership in immovable property ordinarily passes on sale for a price paid, promised, or partly paid and partly promised, and registration is strong but not conclusive evidence of transfer. Where the sale deed and surrounding circumstances show that payment of the balance consideration was intended as a condition precedent, title does not pass until that condition is met. The recitals here required payment before the Sub-Registrar, no such payment was made, possession was not delivered, and the purchaser had not shown readiness to pay the balance. On that basis, ownership was held not to have passed on registration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>