https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297786 A party cannot both repudiate a conditional sale deed as void for alleged non-encashment of cheques and still sue on the same deed for recovery of the sale consideration. The High Court treated the transaction as contingent on payment, read with the contractual arrangement and Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and held the recovery claim untenable. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed. On the counterclaim, the defendants were entitled to refund of the part consideration paid, but past interest was refused because they remained in possession and were themselves in breach. The counterclaim succeeded for principal with future interest only. en-us Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Sep 2021 06:16:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297786 A party cannot both repudiate a conditional sale deed as void for alleged non-encashment of cheques and still sue on the same deed for recovery of the sale consideration. The High Court treated the transaction as contingent on payment, read with the contractual arrangement and Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and held the recovery claim untenable. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed. On the counterclaim, the defendants were entitled to refund of the part consideration paid, but past interest was refused because they remained in possession and were themselves in breach. The counterclaim succeeded for principal with future interest only. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297786