Non-payment of sale consideration does not invalidate a completed registered sale; remedy lies in recovery.

The plaintiff, Devendra Singh, executed a registered sale deed dated 10 December 2008 in favour of Great Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. concerning his interest in agricultural land situated at Village Hasanpur Lodha, District Hapur.

The plaintiff alleged that the total sale consideration was ₹5,84,24,750, payable in instalments, and that several cheques issued towards the consideration were dishonoured; according to him, only ₹2,13,20,000 had been paid and ₹3,71,04,750 remained outstanding.

He consequently sought cancellation of the registered sale deed on the ground that there had been no complete payment and that ownership was not intended to pass until full consideration was paid.

The defendant contended that the agreed consideration was ₹2,13,76,000, that the entire consideration had been paid, and that possession and ownership had been transferred under the registered sale deed.

The sale deed recorded receipt of the entire consideration, transfer of possession, and transfer of all ownership rights.

Mutation was subsequently effected in the defendant’s favour, and the plaintiff admitted that he had not objected to the mutation.

The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court affirmed that decision.

The plaintiff approached the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Whether a registered sale deed can be declared void or cancelled under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 merely because the purchaser has allegedly failed to pay the entire sale consideration?

Whether, in view of the recitals in the registered sale deed and the plaintiff’s admissions, the plaintiff was entitled to cancellation of the sale deed rather than pursuing a remedy for recovery of the alleged unpaid consideration?

The Court applied Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, under which a sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price “paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised”; therefore, complete payment at the time of execution is not an essential condition for the validity of a sale.

It relied on Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366, and Raziya Begum v. Nafisa Begum Abdul Hamid, 2026 INSC 814, for the principle that non-payment of the balance sale consideration does not invalidate a completed sale where the parties intended to transfer ownership, although the seller may pursue recovery of the unpaid amount.

Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was applied to emphasise that the terms of a disposition reduced to writing must ordinarily be proved from the document itself.

The Court also relied on the presumption attaching to a registered document and the evidentiary significance of the Sub-Registrar’s endorsements, as recognised in Ishwar Das Jain v. Sohan Lal.

It further noted that concurrent findings of fact ordinarily cannot be disturbed in second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

The Court held that the registered sale deed expressly recorded receipt of the sale consideration, transfer of possession, and complete transfer of ownership, and that the plaintiff had admitted that he understood and accepted the contents of the deed.

His subsequent admissions that mutation had been effected in the defendant’s favour without objection, that the dispute was essentially about money, and that he had already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act weakened his claim that the sale deed itself was void.

Applying Section 54, the Court reasoned that even assuming some consideration remained unpaid, such non-payment would constitute a monetary claim and would not undo the transfer of ownership when the parties intended a present sale.

The plaintiff’s appropriate remedy was therefore recovery of the alleged balance consideration, not cancellation of the registered sale deed.

The High Court also found no substantial legal error in the concurrent factual findings of the courts below.

The second appeal was dismissed, and the judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for cancellation were affirmed.