Supreme Court Judgement On Sale Agreement
38. The real test is the intent of the parties. To be a „sale,“ the parties must intend to transfer ownership of the property and they must also intend to pay the price either to Derob or in the future. The intention is to make the calculation based on the recital of the sales record, the conduct of the parties and the evidence to be recorded. It is trite to put yourself on the case of Baijnath Singh vs. Paltu et al., (1908) ILR 30, Allahabad page 125, where the Allahabad High Court noted that if the balance of the sale was recited as the consideration for the sale was paid, but it is established by the court that there was no consideration of sale, the non-payment of the purchase money cannot prevent that the sub-ownership of the property purchased by the seller to the buyer and the buyer, despite this non-payment, may hold a complaint. „9. The complainant at O.S. The 1981 Number 707 is almost identical to that of the O. S.704 of 1981, and in this appeal, the sale agreement was entered into by the defendants 1 to 5 with the first prosecutor on 16.7.1980 and the consideration was fixed at 1.19,500/2010 and 4 months for the conclusion of the sale. An advance of 5,000 applications was made and, 7.11.1980, defendants 1 to 5 asked the first applicant to extend the 10-month period, given that there were ongoing crops and disputes, and 25 cents of the property was delivered to the first plaintiff on 7.11.1980 and this property was classified as Item 2. Again, defendants 1 to 5 requested, on 27.8.1981, a further extension of the three-month period, and this was also agreed and both were approved in the sale agreement. b) The first applicant was willing and willing to pay the consideration for the residual sale, and the first applicant had sufficient resources for the purchase of stamp paper and other expenses for the proper execution of the deed of sale, and the first applicant was prepared to file the sale account in court. Accused 1 and 2 are closely related to accused 4 and 5.
With the intention of deceiving the first plaintiff and defeating his legitimate rights, a fraudulent act of sale was executed by defendants 1 and 2 for the benefit of defendant 3 and 5.