Transfer of Property Act: s.54 – Case of plaintiff-appellant was that he had executed a power of attorney in favour of his brother – Acting on the basis of power of attorney, his brother executed two sale deeds – The first sale deed was executed in favour of his sons and the other in favour of his wife – Plaintiff filed two suits – One was against his brother and his minor sons and the other was against his brother and his wife – Defence of defendant-brother was that he was in muscat and earning well and remitting money to his brother to purchase properties in his name – However, while purchasing the properties, plaintiff had got his name incorporated as joint purchaser – Trial court accepted the case of defendant and dismissed the suit – First appellate court partly allowed the appeal holding that both the brothers were joint purchaser – High Court upheld the view that both the brothers were joint owners of suit properties and the suits for declaration of invalidty of the sale deeds were barred by limitation and the sale considerations mentioned in the sale deeds executed in 1981 of Rs.5500 and Rs.6875 were not exhorbitant and the amounts were not out of reach of the sons and wife of defendant-brother – On appeal, held: The modified decree passed by High Court on the basis of the finding that the plaintiff and defendant-brother were the joint owners of the suit properties as the defendant-brother failed to establish his claim that he was the sole owner of the suit properties – Defendants did not challenge the impugned judgment and therefore, the finding that the plaintiff and defendant-brother were the joint owners of the suit properties has become final – Admittedly, there is no evidence adduced on record by defendant-brother that his minor sons and his wife had any source of income at the relevant time and that they paid him consideration as mentioned in the sale deed – There is a categorical finding recorded by trial court that defendant-brother by taking advantage of the power of attorney, transferred the suit lands to his own minor sons and his wife without any consideration – High Court did not disturb the finding recorded by trial court regarding the failure of the defendants to adduce evidence regarding the payment of consideration under the sale deeds – High Court merely observed that the sale consideration of Rs.5,500/- and Rs.6,875/was not exorbitant and was not out of reach of minor sons and wife – High Court ignored that it was considering a case of sale deeds of the year 1981 and that the purchasers under one of two sale deeds were minor and it was not even pleaded that they had any source of income – The same was the case with the sale deed executed in favour of his wife – Thus, defendants-respondents failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the minor sons and wife had any source of income and that they had paid the consideration payable under the sale deed.
Transfer of Property Act: s.54 – Sale without consideration – A sale of an immovable property has to be for a price – The price may be payable in future – It may be partly paid and the remaining part can be made payable in future – The payment of price is an essential part of a sale covered by s.54 of the TP Act – If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law – Therefore, such a sale will be void – It will not effect the transfer of the immovable property – It is the specific case made out in the plaints as originally filed that the sale deeds are void as the same are without consideration – It is pleaded that the same are sham as the purchasers who were minor sons and wife had no earning capacity – No evidence was adduced by defendant-brother about the payment of the price mentioned in the sale deeds as well as the earning capacity at the relevant time of his wife and minor sons – Hence, the sale deeds will have to be held as void being executed without consideration – Hence, the sale deeds did not affect in any manner one half share of the appellant in the suit properties – In fact, such a transaction made by defendant-brother of selling the suit properties on the basis of the power of attorney to his own wife and minor sons is a sham transaction – It was not necessary for the plaintiff 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 – As no title was transferred under the said sale deeds, the plaintiff continues to have undivided half share in the suit properties – Decree passed by trial court that the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession of the suit properties along with his defendant-brother is restored.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. There is a specific finding recorded by the District Court that there was no evidence adduced to show that Sudarshan Kumar’s wife and minor children paid consideration as shown in the sale deeds. In fact, before the District Court, it was pleaded that Sudarshan Kumar’s wife had brought some money from her parents. The District Court held that no evidence was adduced to prove the said contention. Therefore, there is a categorical finding recorded by the District Court that Sudarshan Kumar, by taking advantage of the power of attorney, transferred the suit lands to his own minor sons and his wife without any consideration. The High Court has not disturbed the finding recorded by the District Court regarding the failure of the respondents to adduce evidence regarding the payment of consideration under the sale deeds dated 10 th April 1981. The High Court merely observed that the sale consideration of Rs.5,500/- and Rs.6,875/- was not exorbitant and was not out of reach of Sudarshan Kumar’s sons and wife. Perhaps, the High Court has ignored that it was considering a case of sale deeds of the year 1981 and that the purchasers under one of two sale deeds were minor sons of Sudarshan Kumar and it was not even pleaded that they had any source of income. The same is the case with the sale deed executed by Sudarshan Kumar in favour of his wife. Thus, undisputed factual position is that the respondents failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the minor sons and Sudarshan Kumar’s wife had any source of income and that they had paid the consideration payable under the sale deed. [Para 14][597-H, 598-A-F]
2. A sale of an immovable property has to be for a price. The price may be payable in future. It may be partly paid and the remaining part can be made payable in future. The payment of price is an essential part of a sale covered by section 54 of the TP Act. If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is of no legal effect. Therefore, such a sale will be void. It will not effect the transfer of the immovable property. [Para 15] [598-A-F]
3. Now, coming back to the case in hand, both the sale deeds record that the consideration has been paid. That is the specific case of the respondents. It is the specific case made out in the plaints as originally filed that the sale deeds are void as the same are without consideration. It is pleaded that the same are sham as the purchasers who were minor sons and wife of Sudarshan Kumar had no earning capacity. No evidence was adduced by Sudarshan Kumar about the payment of the price mentioned in the sale deeds as well as the earning capacity at the relevant time of his wife and minor sons. Hence, the sale deeds will have to be held as void being executed without consideration. Hence, the sale deeds did not affect in any manner one half share of the appellant in the suit properties. In fact, such a transaction made by Sudarshan Kumar of selling the suit properties on the basis of the power of attorney of the appellant to his own wife and minor sons is a sham transaction. Thus, the sale deeds will not confer any right, title and interest on Sudarshan Kumar’s wife and children as the sale deeds will have to be ignored being void. 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. As no title was transferred under the said sale deeds, the appellant continues to have undivided half share in the suit properties. That is how the District Court passed the decree holding that the appellant is entitled to joint possession of the suit properties along with Sudarshan Kumar. The decree passed by the District Court deserves to be restored. [Paras 16, 17][599-E-H; 600-A-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.