KRISTNASWAMI IYENGAR Vs. SUBRAMANIA GANAPATHIGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff and another jointly sold certain lands to defendants Nos. 1 and 4 for Rs. 10,000 under Exhibit A. The document recites the receipt of Rs. 10,000 in cash and at the end of the document the particulars for the receipt of Rs. 10,000 are given as follows : Rs. 8,650 received in cash,--Rs. 1,350 received as per two bonds executed separately in our favour by the aforesaid T. Kristnaswami Iyengar (the 1st defendant). One bond was executed in favour of the present plaintiff and the other in favour of his co-vendor Srinivasavaradachariar. The plaintiff now sues to recover the amount due to him on account of his sale, namely, Rs. 675 with interest. He also makes other claims with which we are not concerned now. The lower Courts have given him a decree for the amount due and have also given him a charge on the plaint property treating the amount as unpaid purchase-money.

(2.) It is now contended in appeal that this charge ought not to be given because the whole of the purchase-money had been paid. This plea is based on two grounds, (1) that the two promissory notes constituted part of the consideration to be paid for the land and were not merely collateral security for the unpaid purchase money, and (2) that the vendors accepted the sole liability of the first defendant in respect of these two promissory notes and exonerated the other vendee, the 4th defendant.

(3.) The appellant has quoted a large number of English cases in support of his plea, but it must be observed that the vendor s lien for unpaid purchase-money is of a somewhat different nature in English Law from the statutory lien granted under Section 55 (4) of the Transfer of Property Act. for in England the lien is an equitable lien and is based on the assumption that although the legal estate passes at the time of sale, the equitable estate does not pass until the purchase-money has been completely discharged.