SARJUG SARAN SINGH Vs. RAMCHARITAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment of a single Judge of this Court (A.B.N. Sinha, J.), dated the 17th December, 1963, in Second appeal No. 458 of 1962, affirming the first appellate judgment of the 1st Additional District Judge, Patna, and dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and other consequential reliefs.

(2.) The disputed property has been described in Schedule A of the plaint, and admittedly it formerly belonged to defendants 1 and 2. They executed and registered a sale-deed on the 10th April, 1956, in favour of plaintiff No. 2, conveying the property to him. On the 18th April, 1956, they executed two sale-deeds conveying the same property to defendants 3, 4, 5 and 6, and also executed a deed of cancellation of the sale-deed executed in favour of plaintiff No. 2. These deeds were duly registered on the 25th April, 1956. The plaintiffs case was that title to the property completely passed to the plaintiffs (plaintiff No. 2 being a member of the plaintiffs' joint family) by virtue of the earlier sale-deed (ext. 1), as it was the intention of the parties that title should pass on the execution and registration of the document, even though neither the consideration money was paid on that date nor was delivery of possession given. The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants) 3, 4, 5 and 6 were not bona fide purchasers for value of the property, that they were fully aware of the execution of the sale deed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs and that with that knowledge they deliberately purchased the property by the two sale-deeds on a subsequent date, dishonestly acting in collusion with defendants 1 and 2.

(3.) The most important question for consideration was whether title passed to the plaintiffs by virtue of the mere execution and registration of exhibit 1. The material portion of the recital in the document (English translation) is as follows: Under these circumstances, we, the executants, in a sound state of body and mind, in our proper senses, without pressure, coercion, deception and temptation of anybody, after fully understanding our profit and loss and in entire good faith absolutely sold and vended the whole and entire kasht land and house etc. specified in column, No. 5 of this deed owned and possessed by us which are quite free and clear from defects of title and clear mortgage liens (?) etc., with all boundary limits and rights and title appertaining thereto on admitting the execution of this Seed for a fair price of Rs. 4,372/8 in Govt. coins half of which is Rs. 2,186/4 in the said coins to the claimants mentioned in column No. 2 without reserving any right of cancellation and revocation, and we, the executants, received the entire consideration money at the time of exchange of equivalents from the aforesaid vendee and appropriated the same for purchase of property at our residential place in Mauza Alipur Bihta and near our residence as well as for spending the same over business. We the executants put the vendee in possession and occupation of the vended property as absolute owner thereof. The contract for State was confirmed and the exchange of equivalents was effected (between or by) both the parties. All rights, title and interest which we, the executants, had in the vended property have now been acquired by the said vendee and his heirs and representatives precisely and without any difference. It was admitted by the plaintiffs themselves that the aforesaid recital is incorrect, both as regards the receipt of the consideration money and as regards putting the vendee in possession of the property. The registration receipt remained with the executants, namely, defendants 1 and 2, and the plaintiffs alleged that on a subsequent date, when they offered to pay the consideration money and to take the registration receipt from defendants 1 and 2 (Takalzul badlain exchange of equivalents), they, under the instigation of the other defendants refused to part with the receipt and sold the property to the other defendants. It appears to have been taken for granted by both parties that there was a latent ambiguity in the recitals of the document inasmuch as some of the recitals were unmeaning with reference to existing acts and hence evidence was adduced by both sides to prove the surrounding circumstances and he conduct of the parties. One of the plaintiffs' witness, P.W. 1 stated that he was ready to offer the money on the date of the registration, but the first appellate court did not accept his evidence. It further held that defendants 1 and 2 were in urgent need of money and that was the main reason why they executed the two sale-deeds in favour of the other defendants within such a short time after the execution of the Sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. It also held that the plaintiffs were not on such intimate terms with defendants 1 and 2 so as to Justify the inference that even after parting with title to the property these two defendants would have waited for some time to receive the consideration money, especially when they were in urgent need for the same. Taking these circumstances, into consideration, the learned, first appellate court, on a construction of the document, held that the intention of the parties was that title should pass only on payment of the consideration, and that, as admittedly the consideration was not paid, the plaintiffs did, not obtain title by virtue of exhibit 1.