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.