Skip to content


Ponnayya Goundan Vs. Muttu Goundan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1894)ILR17Mad146
AppellantPonnayya Goundan
RespondentMuttu Goundan and anr.
Cases ReferredNarain Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Dataram I.L.R.
Excerpt:
sale of immoveable porperty - transfer of property act--act iv of 1882, section 54--effect of registration of sale-deed. - - 597 that a registered transfer without delivery of possession will pass any interest in land, and we consider that registration constitutes a sufficient delivery of the deed to pass such interest, otherwise the object of registration would be defeated, that object being to let all the world know in whom the title to property lies......to plaintiff effected a transfer of the property to him by virtue of section 54 of the transfer of property act. it has been held in narain chunder chuckerbutty v. dataram i.l.r. 5 cal. 597 that a registered transfer without delivery of possession will pass any interest in land, and we consider that registration constitutes a sufficient delivery of the deed to pass such interest, otherwise the object of registration would be defeated, that object being to let all the world know in whom the title to property lies. we must, therefore, reverse the decree of the district judge and restore that of the munsif, the plaintiff still being liable for the balance of the unpaid purchase-money. the defendants must pay the plaintiff's costs in this and in the lower appellate court.
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that the registration of the sale-deed to plaintiff effected a transfer of the property to him by virtue of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. It has been held in Narain Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Dataram I.L.R. 5 Cal. 597 that a registered transfer without delivery of possession will pass any interest in land, and we consider that registration constitutes a sufficient delivery of the deed to pass such interest, otherwise the object of registration would be defeated, that object being to let all the world know in whom the title to property lies. We must, therefore, reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Munsif, the plaintiff still being liable for the balance of the unpaid purchase-money. The defendants must pay the plaintiff's costs in this and in the Lower Appellate Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //