Akhilesh Gupta & Anr.\u00a0 \u200b\u00a0 {Appellants\u00a0 }\u00a0 <\/b>Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/b>Rajwans Vadehra\u00a0 \u00a0{Respondent}<\/b><\/p>\n
RFA 396\/2024, CM APPL. 35245\/2024<\/b><\/p>\n
(SJB, Neena Bansal Krishna, J.)<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Overview<\/b><\/p>\n
This case before the Delhi High Court raised an important issue i.e., can a registered sale deed be cancelled merely because the seller did not actually received the sale money? The District Court answered this positively and declared the sale deed void. The High Court, however, revisited this finding, and examined whether such an approach aligns with the principles of property law.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Court focused on the understanding of the term \u201csale\u201d under the Transfer of Property Act, and whether the non-payment affects the validity of the transfer itself or only gives rise to a separate remedy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Facts of the Case<\/b><\/p>\n The dispute is related to a shop in Chawri Bazar, owned by the Rajwans Vadehra, the respondent herein. The parties had known each other for over two decades and shared a good relationship with each other. In 2016, the respondent agreed to sell the property to the appellants, Akhilesh Gupta & Anr., for \u20b97,25,000.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As per the respondent, the entire amount was supposed to be paid through two cheques at the time of the registration. However, on the day of execution of the sale deed, the appellants stated that they won\u2019t be able to immediately handover the cheques and sought some time. Due to such cordial relations between them, the respondent still proceeded with the registration. It was further claimed by the respondent that the original sale deed was given back to him for his assurance, and that the possession was never actually given.<\/span><\/p>\n A few months later, it was alleged by him that the appellants forcefully took the possession of the premises. The appellants, on the other hand, denied the claims. They claimed that the respondent has already been given the cheques and this has been acknowledged before the Sub-Registrar. According to them, the possession was legally transferred.<\/span><\/p>\n Following the same, the respondent filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and recovering the possession. The District Court accepted the same, and the sale deed was set aside while holding that since no consideration was paid, the transaction could not stand. This led to the present appeal.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Legal Issues<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Decision<\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Delhi High Court set aside the judgement of the District Court and the appeal was allowed.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court clarified that legally, a \u201csale\u201d is complete once the ownership is transferred in exchange for a price, either paid or promised. Therefore, if there is any failure on part of the buyer to pay the amount, the sale does not become invalid automatically.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It was also emphasised that a registered document is of important evidentiary value. In case the sale deed portrays that the consideration has been paid, it cannot be easily contradicted by oral claims later.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Court laid down that the lower court was incorrect in treating the matter as one with absence of consideration. The price was properly agreed upon, and this was sufficient to complete the transaction legally. It also acknowledged that the respondent did not received the money. It held that the proper recourse to the same would be to recover the amount, not paid yet, instead of cancelling the sale.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n At last, the Court directed the appellants to pay \u20b97,25,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the sale deed until payment. The suit for cancellation was dismissed and the appeal was allowed.<\/span><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Akhilesh Gupta & Anr.\u00a0 \u200b\u00a0 {Appellants\u00a0 }\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0Rajwans Vadehra\u00a0 \u00a0{Respondent} RFA 396\/2024, CM APPL. 35245\/2024 (SJB, Neena Bansal Krishna, J.) Overview This case before the Delhi High Court raised an important issue i.e., can a registered sale deed be cancelled merely because the seller did not actually received the sale money? The District […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3737,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3735","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3735","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3735"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3735\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3738,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3735\/revisions\/3738"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3737"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3735"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3735"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3735"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n