G MUTHALU REDDIAR Vs. SRINIVASAN PADAYATCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment in A.S.No.51/1992 reversing the Judgment of the Trial Court and decreeing Plaintiff"s Suit and thereby declaring Sale Deed dated 01.07.1981 is non est and void. Pending Second Appeal, Plaintiff-Srinivasa Padayatchi died and his legal representatives were brought on record in the Appeal as Appellants 2 to 11.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that Plaintiff agreed to sell the suit property (House) to the Defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- and effected Sale Deed on 01.07.1981 (Ex.B1) specifying the sale consideration Rs.15,000/-. The said sum was also received by him and possession was handed over to the Defendant. Sale Deed-Ex.B1 was presented before the Registrar on 01.07.1981 itself between 3.00 and 4.00 p.m. and the execution of the document was also admitted by the Defendant. However, the impugned document could not be registered for want of permission from the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. District Registrar had sent Ex.A2-Letter dated 19.12.1984 informing the Plaintiff that document is kept, pending for want of permission and if both parties want, the document could also be taken back.

(3.) ON the above pleadings, Trial Court framed relevant issues. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Trial Court held that Ex.B1 Sale Deed specifies sale consideration as Rs.15,000/- and therefore, question of further sale consideration would not arise and the Sale Deed is complete as far as consideration is concerned. Trial Court further held that Ex.B1 could not be registered for want of permission and Ex.B1 cannot be declared as non est on the ground of delay in registration. Trial Court further held that at best Plaintiff can only seek for recovery of balance sale consideration.