It is desired that the said vendees should enter into and remain possession and occupation of the properties vended hereunder and get their names recorded in the office of the State of Bihar through the Hasanpur Anchal.
64/63 in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge, Samastipur, District Darbhanga.
3, 235/ to the vendors and iv permitted the first purchasers to deposit of bharna dues and redeem the mortgage within three months from the date of the decree and decreed the suit accordingly on December 20, 1968.
On these pleadings, the parties went on trial on the following, among other issues Issue No.
15,000/ , out of which Rs.6, 249/ were kept in deposit as being payable to the mortgagees under Sudhbharna bond dated July 29, 1946, Rs.
1 as Karta of H.U.F. and its members predecessors in interest of Respondents 6,7,9, 10 and 11, hereinafter referred to as the vendors under the registered sale deed dated April 30, 1963 Exhibit C .
5 Whether sale deed dated 8.7.
516/ were set off, being the amount payable to the first purchasers by the vendors, and that the balance companysideration of Rs.
The mortgagee is numberlonger in the picture.
They prayed that the said Exhibits H and C/1 be declared illegal, invalid and number binding on them, decree be granted against the vendors to deliver the original sale deed dated April 30, 1963 and against the mortgagees for redemption of suit property.
3000/ , part of the sale companysideration by the first purchasers, was number true and iii the first purchasers were liable to pay Rs.
The facts which give rise to this question may be numbericed here.
Issue No.
The mortgagees by filing a separate written statement supported the case of the vendors.
It is from that judgment and decree of the High Court, the appeal arises.
It is number in dispute that the first purchasers have deposited the mortgage amount and redeemed the mortgage.
5,000/ in the presence of the Registrar and promised to pay the balance of Rs.
The vendors resisted the suit in their written statement it was pleaded that the parties agreed that if the first purchasers did number pay the entire amount of companysideration, they would number get title or possession of the suit property the total sale companysideration was Rs.
8,235/ was agreed to be paid in cash to the vendors on the date of registration.
6,249/ was paid to the mortgagees number did the first purchasers endeavour to redeem the mortgage number paid the balance of companysideration of Rs.
But the first purchasers paid only Rs.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt, the vendors and the second purchasers filed Appeal from Original Decree No.
They claimed that under the sale deed dated April 30, 1963, Exhibit C, they purchased the suit property for valuable companysideration, and acquired absolute title thereunder and that out of sale companysideration, only a sum of Rs.
3,235/ later the registration receipt was kept with the vendors to be endorsed in favour of the first purchasers at the time of payment of the said amount.
4 Whether the plaintiffs derived a good while to the suit property under sale deed dated 30.4.1963 executed by defendants first party or whether that sale deed for want of payment of companysideration was fraudulent and numberinal one.
235/ remained to be paid, which they deposited in the companyrt to the credit of the vendors along with the plaint that Exhibits H and C/1 were illegal, ineffective and number binding on the first purchasers.
Issue No.
However, neither subhbharna bond amount of Rs.
Coming to know of these facts, the first purchasers filed Title Suit No.
516/ Rupees five hundred sixteen to the said vendees and they shall meet the aforesaid necessities and we put the said vendees in possession and occupation of the properties vended hereunder.
The plaintiffs Predecessors in interest of the appellants, hereinafter referred to as the first purchasers purchased land measuring 9 bighas 17 kathas and 12 dhoors, hereinafter referred to as the suit property from Defendant No.
235/ which was refused to be accepted by the vendors and was deposited in companyrt the intention of the parties was to companyvey the property absolutely and that there is numbercontra stipulation in the sale deed mere retention of registration receipt would number show any companytra intention as such execution of Exhibit H and Exhibit C/1 was wholly illegal and they companyveyed numbertitle to the second purchasers.
1963 was true and binding on the parties.
On companysideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial companyrt held i on execution of the sale deed, Exhibits C, title to the suit property had passed in favour of the first purchasers ii the plea of payment of Rs.
68/69 in the High Court of Patna.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree to this effect that in precedence of the sale deed dated 30th March, 1963, the other sale dated dated 8th July, 1963 is invalid, ineffective and number binding on the parties.
3,235/ to the vendors, therefore, the vendors cancelled the sale deed Exhibit C by executing Exhibits H on June 19, 1963 and sold the suit property in favour of the second purchasers under registered sale deed on July 8, 1963 Exhibits C/1 .
On the alleged ground of the first purchasers number paying the entire companysideration amount the vendors by a registered document dated June 19, 1963, Exhibit H, purported to cancel Exhibit C, and on July 8, 1963 executed a second sale deed, Exhibit C/1, in favour of respondents 1 to 5 hereinafter referred to a the second purchasers .
J U D G E M E N T QUADRI, J. This appeal raises the question whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, sale deed dated April 30, 1963 Exhibit C executed by the first defendant group in favour of the plaintiffs companyveyed absolute title to and interest in the suit property.
