TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant with mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month with proportionate costs, and affirmed (subject to the modification that appellant will be entitled to possession only on deposit of Rs. 40,000/-) by the learned District Judge, South Arcot District at Cuddalore vide judgment dated December 15, 1988, rendered in Appeal No. 55 of 1987, is set aside. 2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under: - The suit properties originally belonged to the family of the respondents. First respondent (for himself and his minor sons) and the second respondent sold the properties to the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 43,000/- by a deed dated June 26, 1983. Out of the sale consideration of Rs. 43,000/- a sum of Rs. 3,000/- wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondents were unreasonably refusing to receive the same and, therefore, he served a legal notice calling upon them to hand over possession of the properties sold and pay mesne profits. It is the case of the appellant that after receiving part of the consideration, the respondents did not deliver possession of the properties to the appellant nor paid mesne profits. Therefore, the appellant instituted O.S. No. 144 of 1985 in the Court of learned District Munsiff of Villupuram seeking declaration of title to the suit properties. The appellant also prayed to direct the respondents to hand over possession and to pay past mesne profits of Rs. 3,000/- and for an enquiry into future mesne profits. 3. On service of summons the respondents appear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....established in view of the execution of sale deed and its registration, but he was not entitled to mesne profits. After holding that the appellant had failed to prove the payment of Rs. 25,000/- he held that the appellant was due in respect of the balance consideration of Rs. 40,000/- to the respondents. The learned District Judge clarified that the appellant would be entitled to possession of the suit properties only after he deposited the said Rs. 40,000/- and that the respondents will be entitled to draw the said amount from the court. Thus the learned District Judge partly allowed the appeal of the respondents by judgment and order dated December 15, 1988. 6. Thereupon the respondents invoked jurisdiction of the High Court by way of fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at payment of entire price is not a condition precedent for completion of the sale by passing of title, as Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (`Act' for short) defines `sale' as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised. If the intention of parties was that title should pass on execution and registration, title would pass to the purchaser even if the sale price or part thereof is not paid. In the event of non- payment of price (or balance price as the case may be) thereafter, the remedy of the vendor is only to sue for the balance price. He cannot avoid the sale. He is, however, entitled to a charge upon the property for the unpaid part of the sale price where the owner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s had executed the documents, but refused to make an endorsement to that effect on the deed as the vendors had not received the balance consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. Applying the above mentioned principles to the facts of this case, we find that the parties intended that ownership of the property would be transferred to the appellant only after receipt of the entire consideration by the vendors, as a condition precedent. The operative portion of the sale deed clearly states that the vendors have agreed to receive Rs. 40,000/- in the presence of the Sub- Registrar on the date of the registration of the sale deed and that in consideration of payment to be so made, the property was being conveyed to the purchaser. This makes it clear that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on July 21, 2003 to the respondents to enable them to purchase lorry. This case of the appellant was disbelieved by the trial court as well as the first appellate court which is the final court of facts. That finding was not challenged by the appellant before the High Court. From the averments made in the plaint it is evident that the appellant was ready and willing to make payment of only Rs. 15,000/- and not Rs. 40,000/-. He had never shown his readiness or willingness to make payment of Rs. 40,000/- which was the balance of the consideration and which had to be paid only in the presence of the Sub-Registrar, as mentioned in the deed. Therefore, the first respondent who was present before the Sub-Registrar on behalf of the respondents on....