C.W.J.C. No. 8972 of 1988 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. … Shri Butani Singh Yadav, son of Late Bhujawan Yadav, village Basamanpur, PS Piro, district Bhojpur - - - Petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar through the Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhojpur at Arrah. 3. The Consolidation Officer, Piro, District Bhojpur. 4. Birendra Singh, 4 (a). Surendra Singh, both sons of Late Kapildeo Yadav, 4(b).Mostt. Dhanpatia Kuer, wife of Late Kapildeo Yadav, all of Basamanpur, PS Piro, District Bhojpur. 5. Govind Yadav, 6. Laldhari Yadav, 7. Brij Mohan Yadav, all sons of Late Shri Bhajan Yadav, village Boknawa, PS Bikramganj, District Rohtas. 8. Sheo Bachan Singh, son of Dhanraj Singh Yadav, village Basamanpur, PS Piro, District Bhojpur - - - Respondents. … ----------- For The Petitioner : Mr. K. N. Choubey, Senior Advocate and Mr. S.C. Yadav, Advocate. For the State : For the respondents : Mr. V. Nath, Senior Advocate and Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. Bahadur Singh had two sons, namely, Jagan Yadav and Bhajan Yadav. Bhajan Yadav had three sons, namely, Govind Yadav, Laldhari Yadav and Brij Mohan Yadav who are respondents 5, 6 and 7 in this writ petition. Jagan Singh died during the pendency of this writ petition and his heirs have been substituted as respondents 4(a), 4(b) and 4©. On the basis of the revisional survey the lands were recorded in the name of Govind Yadav, Laldhari Yadav and Brij Mohan Yadav. Jagan Yadav being aggrieved by the entry in the 2 revisional survey record filed an application before the consolidation Officer to correct the revisional survey and enter his name on the lands which are subject matter of dispute. 2. The petitioner who is purchaser from respondents 5, 6 and 7 i.e. sons of Bhajan Yadav filed an objection. The Consolidation Officer by order, dated 30.7.1980 rejected the claim of Jagan Yadav and directed that Chak may be created in the name of Butani Singh with respect to Khata No. 28, khesra no. 255, measuring .39 decimals of land and the name of Jatli Yadav be entered with respect to khata no. 23, khesra no. 278, measuring 31 decimals of land. Jagan Yadav filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer which was allowed by order, dated 28.3.1981 upholding the entry of names in the revisional survey record. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said order filed revision application before the Director Consolidation who has rejected the application on 22.3.1983 and held that the survey entry in the revisional survey are correct. 3. The petitioner had purchased a piece of land by registered sale deed, dated 16.6.1978 executed by respondents 5, 6 and 7 in favour of Jatli Yadav appertaining to khata no. 27, plot no. 255 measuring .39 decimals and a sale deed, dated 16.6.1978 in favour of Bhutuni bearing plot no. 278, having an area of .83 decimals. The total lands purchased by two sale deeds was 1 acre 22 decimals. The interpretation of the sale deeds is of importance in this case. The recitals indicate that a part of the consideration money was paid and the rest was to be paid later. On the date on which the entire payment 3 was made, the title of the land was to pass to the purchaser-petitioner. The consideration amount was not paid to the vendors as a result of which they executed a deed of cancellation on 30.8.1978. Subsequently on 28.12.1978 the money was tendered by the petitioner which was accepted by the vendor and a receipt was granted by the vendee. 4. The argument on behalf of the petitioner is that once he had tendered the consideration money, a receipt has been granted by the vendor, the title of the land which is subject matter of the sale deed would pass to the vendee-petitioner, whereas the respondents contend that since the consideration amount was not paid and the vendors had executed a deed of cancellation of two sale deeds, dated 16.6.1978, subsequent payment of the consideration amount is of no consequence. As such the petitioner would not acquire any title of the said land. 5. In order to support their case the respondents relied on a judgment in the case of Baldeo Singh vs. Dwarika Singh, 1978 PLJR 255 (DB). The facts of the case were that a suit was filed in the court of Munsif, Sasaram for declaration that the plaintiff’s title of the land by virtue of a sale deed, dated 4.1.1963 executed by the defendants Ist set and for a direction to the defendants Ist set to hand over the original sale deed and to receive Rs. 1500/-, the consideration money for the sale in question. The sale deed stipulated that the consideration money of Rs. 1500/- was to be paid to the defendants Ist set at the time of handing over of the registration receipt. The case of 4 the plaintiffs was that they approached the defendants Ist set several times to hand over the consideration amount but the defendants refused to accept the same. The plaintiffs thereafter sent registered notice on 18.1.1963 to the defendants Ist set. Later the plaintiffs learnt that the defendants Ist set has executed another sale deed in favour of the defendants 2nd set on 11.1.1963. The question was whether the title of the property covered by the sale deed will pass to the vendee or not without payment of the consideration amount. The court came to the conclusion that in case where tender for payment of consideration money is made by the vendee before the vendor repudiates the contract, the vendee will acquire valid title over the properties covered by the sale deed in question. As such in the facts mentioned aforesaid the court found that if the plaintiffs had tendered the consideration amount on 4.1.1963 and on or before 10.1.1963, when the cancellation deed was executed, then the title will pass to them and the defendants appellants did not acquire title on the basis of the deed executed in their favour by defendants Ist set on 11.1.1963. The matter was remanded to the court to consider whether the oral evidence led by the plaintiffs that he had offered the consideration amount on several occasions and that the defendants Ist set refused to accept the amount is found to be believable, if so, then the plaintiffs’ suit was to be decreed. 6. In the present case the facts disclose that in fact even after the deed of cancellation was executed, the respondents accepted the consideration amount and issued a receipt in favour of the 5 petitioner. Therefore, the facts of the present case is distinguishable from the facts of the case of Baldeo Singh (supra). 7. The plea on behalf of the defendants that once a deed of cancellation has been executed on 30.8.1978, the sale deed, dated 16.6.1978 stood cancelled, is not acceptable for the reason that the only manner by which a sale deed can be cancelled is through the process of the court. In the facts of this case it is not in dispute that the title to the land which was subject matter of the sale deed was to pass to the vendee on payment of the consideration amount with stipulation that the original sale deed would be handed over to the vendee along with the receipt showing payment. On the other hand if there is a clear conveyance that the executant conveys title in favour of the vendee from the date of execution of the document and the recitals regarding consideration comes latter independent of the clause regarding title, then only it is clear that the title passes independent of the question of consideration money. The execution of a cancellation deed could not alter the terms mentioned in the sale deed specially in view of the fact that a receipt was subsequently issued by the vendor in favour of the vendee showing payment of consideration amount. A document which is duly executed and registered under section 17 of the Registration Act will in the absence of circumstances to the contrary indicate that the parties intended the title to pass subject to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in the deed. Therefore, the subsequent document of cancellation made has been a circumstance to indicate that the vendee had failed to fulfil the conditions prescribed in the sale deed 6 and on such failure it could have been held that the sale deed had become inoperative and in such a circumstance the vendee could not have insisted or claimed that he had a valid title to the lands covered by the sale deed. 8. The facts in this case are otherwise as indicated above and as such the deed of cancellation is nullified by the action of respondents 5, 6 and 7 as by the action their intention was clear when they accepted the consideration amount which was in accordance with the conditions and recitals of the sale deed in question. 9. Accordingly the order passed by the Director Consolidation, dated 22.3.1983 is hereby quashed and this writ petition is allowed. Patna High Court, August 11 , 2010, AFR / haque. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)