The Supreme Court has said that non-payment of a part of the sale is not the basis for cancellation of a registered cell deed.
The court was considering an appeal filed against the Gujarat High Court order which had confirmed the order of the trial court, allowing the application filed by the respondents under order VII Rule 11 (d) of the CPC that the case filed by the plaintiff was withheld due to the time limit.
A suit was filed on the ground to cancel the sale deed (which was executed more than five years ago) on the grounds that the sale amount fixed by the collector was not fully paid by the respondent. The limit period for a suit seeking relief for cancellation of cell deed is three years, starting from the date when the right to file a lawsuit first begins.
In its decision to dismiss the appeal, a bench of Justices L Nageshwar Rao and Justice Indu Malhotra has given the essence of the law applicable for deciding the application under order VII rule 11 of CPC.
Vidyadhar vs. Manikrao (1999) 3 SCC 573 judgement and quoting section 54 of the Property Transfer Act, 1882, the court said the term 0 “Paid or promised or paid in part and paid in part, 0 ”
Indicates that the actual payment is not a non-qualified qualification for the entire payment of the value at the time of execution of the sale deed.
Also Read: Hefty net inflows! Gold ETFs attract Rs 3,500 cr in H1 2020 – Here is why
“Even if the full price has not been paid, but the document has been executed, and then registered, the sale will be completed, and the title transfer under the transaction will take place. Non-payment of a portion will not affect the sale price or the validity of the sale. Once the title of the property is transferred and even if the remaining sale amount has not been paid, the sale cannot be invalidated on this basis.
“Sales” In the constitution the parties must intend to transfer ownership of the property, on the agreement to pay the value in the present or future, the details of the sale deed are to be gathered from the conduct of the parties and evidence on record.
In view of the law laid down by this court, even if the plaintiffs’ arguments are rightly considered that the entire sale amount was not actually paid, it may not be the basis for cancelling the sale deed. The plaintiff may have other measures as per law for recovery of the remaining amount but the relief for cancellation of registered sale deed cannot be given.
The court mentioned that the plaintiff has claimed that the deadline period started on 21.11.2014, when they obtained a copy of the index of sales deed on 02.07.2009.
