BALBIRSINGH Vs. GURBACHAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER having heard both the learned counsel, we are of the view that the appeal will have to fail on two grounds. The document Ex. P 3, upon which the appellant bases his claim contains a peculiar clause to the effect that if the sale consideration of Rs 12,000 (Rupees twelve thousand only) was not paid on or before June 30, 1973, the document shall be deemed to be cancelled. Therefore, this is not a case where the sale consideration is promised to be paid on a future date. Hence it will not qualify within the definition of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Further, the deed has been executed only by the transferor there being no reciprocal promise to pay by the transferee. Even on that score, it cannot constitute a promise to pay the sale consideration in future. Therefore, the courts below are correct that there is no valid conveyance of the property. We find not any merit and the civil appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.