1933 (11) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... defendant 1 in cash. The sale deed was registered on the following day, i e. 16th May 1927, but as the vendor failed to deliver the registered deed to the plaintiff, the latter served him with a notice on 20th May calling for the deed. Three days later notice was also sent to defendant, informing him of the sale and offering to redeem the mortgage. 2. In reply defendant 3 stated that he had transferred his interest to one Chiranji Lal. The plaintiff sought recovery of the sale deed executed in his favour and of the house, or, in the alternative, for refund of ₹ 300, that is to say, ₹ 175 on account of the previous debts, and ₹ 125 on account of the cash said to have been paid at the date of the sale. The defence was that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efendant's document is a registered one. It is contended however that on 27th May, when the deed in favour, of the defendant was registered, the vendor had no interest in the property because the plaintiff's deed, having been registered, title had passed to the plaintiff. Whether that is so however depends on the intention of the parties. 5. If it was intended that title should not pass until payment of the consideration money, registration alone was insufficient to pass the title. It has been found that the consideration money was not paid and it is not disputed that the vendor did not deliver to the plaintiff the deed of sale In these circumstances the conclusion is irresistible that it was not intended that title should pass at ....