JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Nikam, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Kolekar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.

2. Mr. Nikam submitted that the following substantial questions of law are involved in the Second Appeal:

“A. Whether both the Ld. Lower courts were justified in not appreciating that the subject sale deed dated 09/04/2007 is null and void for non-payment of consideration amount?

B. Whether both the Ld. Lower courts were justified in holding the validity of the subject sale deed dated 09/04/2007 merely by holding that the execution of the same is proved?

C. Whether both the Ld. Lower courts were justified in assuming payment of consideration in respect of subject sale deed when the evidence of the Defendant clearly demonstrates otherwise?

D. Whether both the Ld. Lower courts were justified in appreciating and upholding the theory of permissive possession raised by the Defendant in absence of any specific and sufficient evidence to prove the same?”

3. The Appellant is original Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed suit simplicitor for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the Respondent/Defendant filed counterclaim seeking possession. It is the case of the Appellant that his father by registered Sale Deed dated 9th April 2007, sold the suit property to the Respondent. Mr. Nikam submitted that the said Sale Deed is contrary to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the same is without consideration and therefore, null and void. To substantiate his contention, he has relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Kewal Krishan vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1097.

4. In the present case, both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have concurrently held that the consideration was paid to the Appellant’s father by the Respondent. The learned Trial Court has considered the said evidence extensively in paragraph 20. Learned Appellate Court has also considered the payment of consideration in paragraph 8.

5. Mr. Nikam has relied on the cross-examination of the Respondent to substantiate his contention that the said Sale Deed is without any consideration and therefore, null and void. The said cross-examination reads as under:-

6. By appreciating the above evidence, the Courts below concurrently found that consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- has been paid to the father of the Appellant. It is further significant to note that the said Sale Deed dated 9th April 2007 executed by the Appellant’s father in favour of the Respondent is registered Sale Deed and said Sale Deed specifically states as follows:-

7. By considering the recitals and terms and conditions of the said Sale Deed, which is registered, the learned Courts have concurrently held that the payment of consideration has been made by the Respondent to the Appellant’s father. Nothing has been pointed out to demonstrate that said finding is perverse.

8. As far as the reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kewal Krishan (supra), it is to be noted that the factual position in that case is totally different. The factual position in that case is noted in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said decision, which reads as follows:-

“3. The appellant Kewal Krishan executed a power of attorney in favour of Sudarshan Kumar on 28th March 1980. Acting on the basis of the said power of attorney, two sale deeds were executed by Sudarshan Kumar on 10th April 1981. The first sale deed was executed by him by which he purported to sell a part of the suit properties to his minor sons. The sale consideration was shown as Rs.5,500/-. The other sale deed was executed by Sudarshan Kumar in favour of his wife in respect of remaining part of the suit properties. The consideration shown in the sale deed was of Rs.6,875/-. The respondents are Sudarshan Kumar, his wife and his sons.

4. Two separate suits were instituted by the appellant on 10th May 1983. One was against Sudarshan Kumar and his two sons and the other one was against Sudarshan Kumar and his wif