A Delhi court has disposed of a petition filed under the Transfer of Property Act, stating that it was devoid of merit.
The Court of Additional District Judge Shivali Sharma at Tis Hazari rejected the petition, while observing on May 19 that the interpretation of the defendant regarding the decision of the Supreme Court in Kewal Krishan’s case was “highly far-fetched” and against the clear wordings of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
“In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the application under consideration is filed under a wrong interpretation of law. Accordingly, the application is dismissed being without any merits. No order as to cost,” said the order.
As per the Court, the application was filed by defendant Sunil Arora, seeking rejection of a sale agreement dated July 29, 2013 regarding a suit property, which was sold to plaintiff Anil Kumar Arora, represented by counsel Gagan Gandhi, for Rs 4 lakh.
“As per the agreement, the entire sale consideration has already been paid to the defendant by the plaintiff. The possession of the property has also been handed over to the plaintiff vide a possession letter,” noted the Court.
It said, “Merely because the entire sale consideration is paid in advance, it does not make the sale deed to be executed at a later date as an invalid document.
“Reliance is placed on Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which defines the term sale as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised,” added the Court.
Regarding the Supreme Court order dated November 22, 2021 (Kewal Krishan vs Raj Kumar & Ors), the Court observed, “There is no finding of the Apex Court in Kewal Krishan’s (Supra) that the sale consideration for transfer of ownership of immovable property cannot be paid in advance by the purchaser or that a part of the sale consideration is mandatorily required to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.
“The interpretation of the Counsel for the defendant of the decision of the Apex Court in Kewal Krishan’s case (Supra) is highly far-fetched and against the clear wordings of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,” it added.