Supreme Court: Sale Deed cannot be Cancelled Due to Non-Payment of Full Consideration

Must Read

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to...

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Bombay HC: It Will Be Difficult if Civic Bodies Don’t Take Action on Illegal Constructions

The Bombay High Court said on Wednesday that if the Municipal Corporations do not take action on the illegal constructions, things will become very difficult. This observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing a PIL after the Bhiwandi building collapse on September 21st, 2020 which led to the death of 39 lives. Mumbai Thane, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Navi Mumbai, and Bhiwandi-Nizampur corporations were filed as respondents.

Uttarakhand High Court Directed State Authorities To Frame SOP Regarding Kumbh Mela 2021

Noticing the commencement date of Kumbh Mela 2021 amid pandemic from 27 February 2021, the Uttarakhand High Court on Monday expressed concern with regard to organizing and conducting of the Mela and directed State Authorities to discuss and resolve the logistical problems which can come in organizing the Mela during the pandemic time.

Follow us

A Division Bench comprising of Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice L.Nageswara Rao heard the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali. The Apex Court remarked that it is a classic case, where the plaintiffs drafted the plaint. It is an attempt to make an illusory cause of action, and bring the suit within the period of limitation.

Brief facts of the case

The plaintiffs had a plot of agricultural land which had restrictions under Section 73AA of Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1979. The Collector permitted the sale of property subject to terms and conditions under the said provision. They sold the suit property to Respondent No.1 by a registered Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009. Respondent No.1 issued 36 cheques for Rs.1,74,02,000 towards payment of the sale consideration. The Respondent No.1 further sold this suit property to Respondent No.2 and 3 in 2013.

On 15.12.2014, the plaintiff filed a suit against the Respondent no.1 as well as the later purchasers. The Plaintiffs alleged non-payment of a part of the sale consideration in the plaint. They prayed for the relief of cancellation of the Sale Deed on this ground.

The Lower Courts held that the suit was barred by limitation since it was filed after the period of limitation of three years. It was also rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Hence the plaintiffs filed the present appeal.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Plaintiffs contended that they were illiterate. They were only able to put their thumb impression on the Sale Deed. The Respondent had paid only Rs. 40,000 through 6 cheques, and remaining 30 cheques for Rs.1,73,62,000 were “bogus” cheques. Thus, the Plaintiffs prayed for cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009.

Besides, it is also stated that the period of limitation commenced on 21.11.2014. This was when they obtained a copy of the index of the Sale Deed dated 02.07.2009.

Respondents’ Arguments

Respondent No.2 and 3 filed an Application for Rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC. They contended the limitation barred the suit filed by the plaintiffs. In fact, no cause of action has been revealed. The plaintiffs have admitted the execution of the Sale Deed. The dispute is only about not receiving a part of the consideration. They then claimed that the present complaint was incorrect.

Supreme Court’s View

The Court noted that the statements in the plaint are contradictory to that of the Sale Deed. The Sale Deed stated that the entire sale consideration was “paid” by Respondent No.1 to the Plaintiffs during the period between 07.07.2008 to 02.07.2009.

It questioned the Plaintiffs’ silence for a period of over 5 and ½ years. No legal notice for payment of the unpaid sale consideration was issued nor was any proceeding instituted for the recovery of the amount till December 2014.

The Bench explained the term “sale” according to Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The non-payment of a part of the sale price would not affect the validity of the sale. The Bench stated that the Plaintiffs may have other remedies in law for recovery of the balance consideration. However, the relief of cancellation of the registered Sale Deed could not be granted.

The Court also asserted that the receipt of the index would not constitute the cause of action for filing the suit. Instead, it is on the non-payment of the bulk of the sale consideration which occurred in the year 2009. The Bench stated, “The Plaintiffs took the plea to create an illusory cause of action, to overcome the period of limitation.”

It observed that the Collector’s permission was based on the fulfilment of certain conditions. The plaintiffs did not move to revoke the permission, nor did they file a complaint with the Collector. The prayer made by the plaintiff omits the date of Sale Deed execution on 02.07.2009. However, it included the date of the next Sale Deed. The Bench remarked that this was an attempt to mislead the court on the issue of limitation.

Court’s Decision

The Court affirmed the decisions of Trial Court and Gujarat High Court. The suit filed by the Plaintiffs is vexatious, meritless, and does not disclose a right to sue. The plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a). Besides, the present suit is also barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Apex Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 on the Plaintiffs for the abuse of process of the Court.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s request to the U.K. to...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to revoke the Petitioner’s offer as...

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Bombay HC: It Will Be Difficult if Civic Bodies Don’t Take Action on Illegal Constructions

The Bombay High Court said on Wednesday that if the Municipal Corporations do not take action on the illegal constructions, things will become very difficult. This observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing a PIL after the Bhiwandi building collapse on September 21st, 2020 which led to the death of 39 lives. Mumbai Thane, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Navi Mumbai, and Bhiwandi-Nizampur corporations were filed as respondents.

Uttarakhand High Court Directed State Authorities To Frame SOP Regarding Kumbh Mela 2021

Noticing the commencement date of Kumbh Mela 2021 amid pandemic from 27 February 2021, the Uttarakhand High Court on Monday expressed concern with regard to organizing and conducting of the Mela and directed State Authorities to discuss and resolve the logistical problems which can come in organizing the Mela during the pandemic time.

Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Mahindra Finance, Being a Purely Private Body: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court reiterated that Writ Petition against the purely private body is not maintainable and dismissed the petition which was filed against Mahindra Finance Bank as Arif Khan v. Branch Manager Mahindra Finance Sultanpur & Another.

Publication of Notices for Inter-Faith Marriages No Longer Mandatory: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has passed a landmark judgment that likely brings relief to inter-faith marriage. The Court on Wednesday said that the mandatory publication of Notices of Inter-Faith marriages will now be optional to protect the Privacy and Liberty of the Couple. The Court observed that the publication of the notice would “invade the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy”. Therefore, it has made it optional for the couple, they can now request in form of writing to a marriage officer to publish or not to publish a notice regarding the marriage.

Bombay High Court to NIA: Consider Health and Age of Varavara Rao Before Opposing His Bail Plea

The Bombay HC on Wednesday observed that ‘we are all humans’ and asked the National Investigation Agency and the Maharashtra Government to consider the health and age of the Telugu poet-activist Varavara Rao before making submissions in response to his bail plea application on medical grounds.

Supreme Court Agrees To Examine Centre’s Plea To Keep Adultery a Crime in Armed Forces

The Centre appealed to the Supreme court on Wednesday, pleading that the 2018 judgment of decriminalizing adultery under IPC must not apply to the armed forces. The Supreme Court in a path-breaking verdict in 2018 decriminalized adultery and declared all its provisions unconstitutional as it diminishes the value of women, but maintained that it continues to be a ground for divorce.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -