♦ The Supreme Court observed that the payment of price is a fundamental part of a sale deal. If a sale deed in regards of an unflinching property is executed without the payment of price and in the event that it doesn’t accommodate the payment of price at some day in the future, it’s anything but a deal at all according to law, the bench consisting Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka stated.
♦ The court additionally also observed that a document which is void need not be tested by guaranteeing an affirmation as the said plea can be set up and demonstrated even in collateral procedures.
- Name of the case: Kewal Krishan vs Rajesh Kumar Case
- In this case, Kewal Krishan executed a legal authority for Sudarshan Kumar on 28th March 1980
- Based on the said legal authority, two sale deeds were executed by Sudarshan Kumar on 10th April 1981. The principal sale deed was executed by him by which he suspected to offer a part of the suit properties to his minor sons. The deal consideration was displayed as Rs.5,500/.
- The other deal deed was executed by Sudarshan Kumar for his wife in regards of outstanding part of the suit properties. The consideration displayed in the deal deed was of Rs.6,875/-
- Kewal Krishan filed two separate suits. One was against Sudarshan Kumar and his two sons and the other one was against Sudarshan Kumar and his wife. Both the suits, as initially documented, were for directive controlling the respondents from meddling with his ownership and from estranging his portion in the suit properties.
- Alternatively, a plea was made for passing an announcement for ownership.
- The Trial Court excused the suits filed by Kewal Krishan. In request, the District Court partly announced the suits.
- The High Court held that the suits for demonstrating the invalidity of the sale deeds were banished by constraint as the said plea was behind schedule joined on 23rd November 1985.
- In appeal, it was argued that there was no evidence cited to show that the buyers under the sale deeds dated 10th April 1981 had paid consideration to Sudarshan Kumar, and that the minor sons of Sudarshan Kumar and his wife had no ways of earning.
- The bench observed, referring to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882 that a price must be paid for the sale of an immovable property. The price may become due in the future. It may be paid in part and the remainder made payable in the future. The payment of the purchase price is a necessary part of any sale covered by Section 54 of the TP Act.
- The court noted that Sudarshan Kumar provided no evidence regarding the payment of the price specified in the sale deeds, as well as his wife’s and minor sons’ earning capacity at the relevant time. As a result, the sale deeds must be declared null and void because they were executed without consideration, according to the court.
On the issue of constraint, the bench stated:
“It was not necessary for the appellant to specifically claim a declaration as regards the sale deeds by way of amendment to the plaint. The reason being that there were specific pleadings in the plaints as originally filed that the sale deeds were void. A document which is void need not be challenged by claiming a declaration as the said plea can be set up and proved even in collateral proceedings. Hence, the issue of bar of limitation of the prayers for declaration incorporated by way of an amendment does not arise at all.”
Qualification: LL.B / Advocate
Company: Au Small Housing Finance Ltd.
Location: DELHI, Delhi, India
: 03 Feb 2022 | Total Posts
My Published Posts
Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.