LI Network
Published on: 1 August 2023 at 23:01 IST
The Supreme Court of India has made an important observation regarding the use of the term ‘Ta Khubzul Badlain’ in a sale deed. The Court stated that this term alone cannot decisively determine the true nature of a transaction.
The two-judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal highlighted that the term must be examined in conjunction with the entire context of the sale deed, including its recitals and conditions, to ascertain the actual nature of the transaction.
The Court clarified that typically, when a sale deed is executed and registered, and it contains recitals concerning the payment of consideration and delivery of possession, the sale is considered complete, even if the sale price remains unpaid.
Consequently, canceling the sale deed in its entirety becomes improbable. However, an exception to this rule is the practice of ‘Ta Khubzul Badlain.’ Nonetheless, the Court emphasized that the mere presence of this expression in a sale deed is not sufficient to determine the actual nature of the transaction.
Instead, all the terms, conditions, and recitals mentioned in the document must be thoroughly evaluated to arrive at the correct conclusion regarding the transaction.
The case before the Court involved a property purchased through a registered sale deed, where the plaintiff claimed to have paid off the debts owed by the defendant as part of the consideration. Subsequently, the defendant executed a deed of cancellation and a gift deed pertaining to the property.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of title and alleging that the gift deed was forged. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the High Court overturned the decision, asserting that the plaintiff did not pay the consideration and, therefore, had no right to the property.
Dissatisfied with the High Court’s ruling, the plaintiff filed a Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the impugned order.
The Supreme Court observed that, according to the Sale Deed executed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA), the plaintiff indeed became the owner of the property. The Court underlined that the use of the term “Ta Khubzul Badlain” in the Sale Deed was not determinative of the transaction’s nature.
The Sale Deed explicitly stated that the plaintiff acquired ownership and possession of the property, and the defendant had no claim or title to it.
The Court highlighted the significance of the recitals regarding the transfer of title and possession, emphasizing that these crucial aspects could not be ignored.
The Court further clarified that even if there were unpaid considerations, the defendant could not unilaterally cancel the Sale Deed.
The plaintiff’s ownership was established, and he was entitled to possession of the property. Additionally, the Court noted that the second defendant, who received a gift deed from the first defendant, had no right as the latter had no transferable title. Consequently, the unilateral cancellation deed executed by the first defendant was not binding on the plaintiff, as he did not consent to it.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the High Court’s impugned order, and restored the decree passed by the Trial Court, affirming the plaintiff’s ownership and entitlement to possession of the property.
