The Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai recorded that the remedy of the unpaid transferor is to file a suit for recovery but the transferor cannot maintain the relief for cancellation of a registered title deed. Further, a Coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court has also held in Praleen Chopra v. Honey Bhagat that in the event the entire sale consideration had not been paid to the transferor, the remedy of the transferor would only be to recover the same from the transferee.
The relevant paragraphs of the Dahiben v. Arvindbhai judgment read as under:
“29.8 In Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao [Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, (1999) 3 SCC 573] this Court held that the words “price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised” indicates that actual payment of the whole of the price at the time of the execution of the sale deed is not a sine qua non for completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid, but the document is executed, and thereafter registered, the sale would be complete, and the title would pass on to the transferee under the transaction. The non-payment of a part of the sale price would not affect the validity of the sale. Once the title in the property has already passed, even if the balance sale consideration is not paid, the sale could not be invalidated on this ground. In order to constitute a “sale”, the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property, on the agreement to pay the price either in praesenti, or in future. The intention is to be gathered from the recitals of the sale deed, the conduct of the parties, and the evidence on record.
29.9 In view of the law laid down by this Court, even if the averments of the plaintiffs are taken to be true, that the entire sale consideration had not in fact been paid, it could not be a ground for cancellation of the sale deed. The plaintiffs may have other remedies in law for recovery of the balance consideration, but could not be granted the relief of cancellation of the registered sale deed. We find that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is vexatious, meritless, and does not disclose a right to sue. The plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a).”