Skip to content


Sangu Ayyar Vs. Cumarasami Mudaliar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR18Mad61
AppellantSangu Ayyar
RespondentCumarasami Mudaliar and ors.
Cases ReferredUmedmal Motiram v. Davu Bin Dhondiba I.L.R.
Excerpt:
transfer of property act - act iv of 1882, section 54--execution of sale-deed without consideration--subsequent transfer for value--priorities. - .....is found that no consideration was paid as specified in a, and that, consequently, the subsequent sale to defendants nos. 3 and 5 is invalid on the ground that it was made by a person having no title to convey. in support of this contention reliance is placed on ram lakhan rai v. bandan rai i.l.r. 2 all. 711; bishenmun singh v. the land mortgage bank of india i.l.r. 11 cal. 244; umedmal motiram v. davu bin dhondiba i.l.r. 2 bom. 547 and also on section 54 of the transfer of property act.2. the present case is, however, distinguishable from the above. here the first purchaser abstained from paying the purchase-money from 1887 to 1890, and allowed his vendor to retain possession, and then to sell the property to defendants 3 and 5, who, in consequence, paid off the mortgage that was to be.....
Judgment:

1. It is contended that document A being registered the property passed to the first defendant, though it is found that no consideration was paid as specified in A, and that, consequently, the subsequent sale to defendants Nos. 3 and 5 is invalid on the ground that it was made by a person having no title to convey. In support of this contention reliance is placed on Ram Lakhan Rai v. Bandan Rai I.L.R. 2 All. 711; Bishenmun Singh v. The Land Mortgage Bank of India I.L.R. 11 Cal. 244; Umedmal Motiram v. Davu Bin Dhondiba I.L.R. 2 Bom. 547 and also on Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.

2. The present case is, however, distinguishable from the above. Here the first purchaser abstained from paying the purchase-money from 1887 to 1890, and allowed his vendor to retain possession, and then to sell the property to defendants 3 and 5, who, in consequence, paid off the mortgage that was to be discharged by the original purchaser.

3. The plaintiff purchased the same property from the first defendant in 1888, and lay by till 1890, and then, forging the lease B, brought this suit for possession of the property without offering to pay the consideration or accounting for it.

4. We are unable to say that his conduct discloses an intention to insist upon the original sale as a valid transaction.

5. After thus lying by for several years, we do not think he should be permitted in equity to turn round on others who have paid valuable consideration and succeed with the aid of a forged document. To do so would be to permit the Registration Act to be turned into an instrument of fraud.

6. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


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