ARIYAPUTRA NADALWAN Vs. NACHIMUTHU MALAVARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole question argued in this second Appeal relates to the construction of a document marked as Ex. B in the case. Is it a transfer of property or is it merely a release deed? It is described as a release deed, but one must look at its substance and not its form. It was executed by the reversioner of a widow one month after that widow's death and after the succession to the property covered by the deed had fallen to the reversioner. It happened that during the widow's lifetime and while she was still in the ownership of her limited estate in the property the reversioner had executed a sale deed of it for Rs. 2,000 in favour of the respondent. This sale vas inoperative by virtue of Section 6(a), Transfer of Property Act. This transaction is however referred to in the later deed Ex. B, and the reference has in my opinion an important bearing on the construction which Ex. B must receive. THE document recites the sale of the property to the respondent during the widow's lifetime for Rs. 2,000. It then proceeds to recite the fact of the widow's death and says: As I am the immediate heir under reversionary right, and after the death of the said Sevanthi Ammal I represented to you that the said properties were sold before for a low price and that you should pay more, you agreed to it. I have on this day received from you Rs. 500 as cash and have hereby released all my reversionary right in the said property.

(2.) I think the reasonable meaning of this language is that it was agreed that Rs. 2,000 was too low a price and that an additional Rs. 500 should be paid for the property. This Rs. 500 was part of the price for the property. Section 54, Transfer of Property Act, defines a sale as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid. It is not necessary to a transfer of sale that the word "convey" should be used or that any formal terms should be employed. It is sufficient if the document shows that a transfer of ownership for a price is intended, and in my opinion this intention is to be inferred from this document. Both the lower Courts have come to the same decision. The result is that the Second Appeal must be dismissed with costs. (Leave refused.)