The Supreme Court observed that the payment of price is a fundamental
part of a sale deal. If a sale deed in regards of an unflinching property is
executed without the payment of price and in the event that it doesn't
accommodate the payment of price at some day in the future, it's anything
but a deal at all according to law, the bench consisting Justices Ajay
Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka stated.
The court additionally also observed that a document which is void need
not be tested by guaranteeing an affirmation as the said plea can be set up
and demonstrated even in collateral procedures.
Name of the case: Kewal Krishan vs Rajesh Kumar Case
In this case, Kewal Krishan executed a legal authority for Sudarshan
Kumar on 28th March 1980.
Following up based on the said legal authority, two sale deeds were
executed by Sudarshan Kumar on 10th April 1981. The principal sale deed was
executed by him by which he suspected to offer a part of the suit properties
to his minor sons. The deal consideration was displayed as Rs.5,500/.
The other deal deed was executed by Sudarshan Kumar for his wife in
regards of outstanding part of the suit properties. The consideration
displayed in the deal deed was of Rs.6,875/-
Kewal Krishan filed two separate suits. One was against Sudarshan Kumar
and his two sons and the other one was against Sudarshan Kumar and his wife.
Both the suits, as initially documented, were for directive controlling the
respondents from meddling with his ownership and from estranging his portion
in the suit properties.
Alternatively, a plea was made for passing an announcement for
The Trial Court excused the suits filed by Kewal Krishan. In request,
the District Court partly announced the suits.
The High Court held that the suits for demonstrating the invalidity of
the sale deeds were banished by constraint as the said plea was behind
schedule joined on 23rd November 1985.
In appeal, it was argued that there was no evidence cited to show that
the buyers under the sale deeds dated 10th April 1981 had paid consideration
to Sudarshan Kumar, and that the minor sons of Sudarshan Kumar and his wife
had no ways of earning.
The bench observed, referring to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property
Act of 1882 that a price must be paid for the sale of an immovable property.
The price may become due in the future. It may be paid in part and the
remainder made payable in the future. The payment of the purchase price is a
necessary part of any sale covered by Section 54 of the TP Act.
The court noted that Sudarshan Kumar provided no evidence regarding the
payment of the price specified in the sale deeds, as well as his wife's and
minor sons' earning capacity at the relevant time. As a result, the sale
deeds must be declared null and void because they were executed without
consideration, according to the court.
On the issue of constraint, the bench stated:
"It was not necessary for the appellant to specifically claim a declaration
as regards the sale deeds by way of amendment to the plaint. The reason
being that there were specific pleadings in the plaints as originally filed
that the sale deeds were void. A document which is void need not be
challenged by claiming a declaration as the said plea can be set up and
proved even in collateral proceedings. Hence, the issue of bar of limitation
of the prayers for declaration incorporated by way of an amendment does not
arise at all."