TMI Blog1965 (3) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to him, with instructions that as soon as the purchase amount was paid, the sale-deed should be handed over to the defendant. The defendant did not pay the amount, but somehow managed to get the sale-deed from Minka Rajanna and dispossessed the plaintiff in 1954. The defendant in his written statement admitting the sale transaction, pleaded that he said the consideration and got possession of the land from the plaintiff. He also stated that the sale deed could not be registered, because permission of the Taluqdar was not obtained. He, however, denied that he ever dispossessed the plaintiff, and stated that he was in possession as purchaser. (3) The trial Court, after framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rship of the property has passed to the buyer before payment of the whole of the purchase-money the seller is entitled to a charge upon the property in the hands of the buyer, any transferee with notice of the non-payment, for the amount of the purchase-money, or any part thereof remaining unpaid, and for interest on such amount or part from the date on which possession has been delivered. Under this provision in case of default of payment of purchase-money the seller is only entitled to a charge. There cannot be any question of his getting possession. An identical question had come up before the Madras High Court in the case of (1910) ILR 34 Mad 543 and it has been held. The provisions of the Transfer of Property Act that the ven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property although it could not operate as a mortgage, constituted a sale and that under S. 55 (4) (b) of T P Act the mortagagee-decree-holder was entitled to a charge upon the property transferred in the hands of the mortgagor judgment-debtor for the amount of the purchase-money and for interest thereon, and that the charge could be enforced by sale of the property under S. 100 of the Act and under O. 34, R. 15 C. P. C. as in the case of a simple mortgage. (6) In view of these pronouncements, I cannot accept the view taken by both the Courts below that the seller is entitled to possession of the property in default of payment of the purchase-money. The decrees of both the Courts below have, therefore, to be modified. (7) T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
