Skip to main content

Mere handing over of sale consideration by the plaintiff at the time of execution of sale deed will not in itself create a right

 Cause Title : K.S. Rama Rao vs Subbalakshmi, R.S.A No. 1092 OF 2018, Karnataka High Court, 

Date of Judgment/Order : 17 November, 2022

Corum : Sachin Shankar Magadum; J.

Citied: NA

Background

The Plaintiff had claimed that he and his elder brother (now deceased) had jointly purchased a property in the name of the elder brothers wife (also deceased) out of joint earnings in a hotel run by them. Plaintiff also claimed that he was in joint possession over the suit schedule property and that his brother acknowledging his contribution towards sale consideration, has made a bequeath under his will. This claim was disputed by the daughter of the elder brother.

The trial court rejected the claim stating that there is no mention in regard to the joint earning of plaintiff and his elder brother and there is no covenant indicating that the sale consideration was jointly pooled by plaintiff and his elder brother. As for the will, the trial court was of the view that the elder brother had no title over the suit schedule property and he could not have bequeathed the same.

Before the Appellate court, the plaintiff laid stress on the endorsement indicated in the sale deeds which stated that it was he the plaintiff who had handed over the sale consideration. Based on the said endorsement, he claimed that the same to proves him to have jointly invested in the property. This claim was also rejected by the Appellate court and the matter came up before the High court.

Judgment


The High Court observed that the Plaintiff has in fact placed heavy reliance on the endorsement found in all the registered sale deeds. By placing reliance on the endorsements in the sale deeds, plaintiff claims that he has equally contributed to the sale consideration. But on reading the endorsements, this Court would also find that the endorsement only indicates that the money that was paid by Rangamma was handed over by plaintiff to the vendor. The endorsement nowhere indicates that sale consideration was equally contributed by plaintiff. The properties are purchased at different point of time. 

Agreeing with the conclusions drawn by the lower courts, the HC said that if the endorsement reads as above, then it has to be inferred that the sale consideration was in fact paid by Rangamma through plaintiff who had only handed over the sale consideration. Mere handing over of sale considerations by the plaintiff at the time of execution of sale deed will not in itself create a right.

If really all the suit schedule properties were purchased through joint labour, then it was quite unnatural for an elder brother to purchase the property in the name of his wife. Obviously, if there was equal contribution, plaintiff would have never agreed to purchase the property in the name of his sister-in-law. Therefore, the theory that plaintiff has equally contributed by parting sale consideration appears to be unnatural and both the Courts have not accepted this contention. Both the Courts have concurrently held that sale consideration was paid by the sister-in-law and all the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of the sister-in-law.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more