JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the plaintiff's second appeal are as under:-

"1. Whether, the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence in correct perspective to reverse the finding of the trial Court?"

"2. Whether, the sale deed Ex. D-1 was void for want of consideration?"

[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court].

2. Plaintiff-Baikunth Singh filed a suit stating inter-alia that sale deed dated 6.6.80 executed by Sudhiya Bai in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 is not binding on him and it be declared null & void and he is entitled for possession from defendants No. 1 and 2 on the ground that sale deed was executed by Sudhiya Bai without legal necessity and consideration has also not been paid to her and she had no need of said money at the time when sale deed was allegedly executed by Sudhiya Bai in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2.

3. Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and opposed the plaint allegations stating inter-alia that title has legally and validly been passed in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2, as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed with costs.

4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by the judgment and decree dated 20.2.84 decreed the suit holding that after death of Sudhiya Bai the plaintiff has succeeded the right, title in her property, but he has no right title over her property during life time of Sudhiya Bai and further held that the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession.

5. On first appeal filed by defendants No. 1 and 2, the First Appellate Court allowed the first appeal and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit.

6. Questioning legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed by the plaintiff, in which substantial questions of law have been framed by this Court, which have been set-out in opening paragraph of this judgment.

7. Mr. Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that the First Appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in setting aside the well merited judgment of the trial Court granting decree, as no consideration was paid to Sudhiya Bai for alleged sale deed executed in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2, therefore, no title has been transferred to the defendants. He relied upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Parmanand Vs. Dadanlal 1998 (I) MPWN 146 and also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Sinth & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2807 would submit that the plaintiff being not party to the sale deed was not required to seek cancellation of sale deed dated 6.6.80 executed by Sudhiya Bai in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court be set aside and that of the trial Court be restored. He would also submit that since consideration was not paid in favour of Sudhiya Bai, therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession in his favour.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Pallav Mishra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2/defendants No. 1 and 2, would submit that the plaintiff is stranger to the sale deed dated 6.6.80 executed by Sudhiya Bai in their favour, therefore, the plaintiff was not competent to question legality and validity of sale deed. The plaintiff being stranger to sale deed cannot dispute the payment of consideration or inadequacy of consideration. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao and another (1999) 3 SCC 573 and Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (dead) Through legal Representatives Vs. Muddasani Sarojana (2016) 12 SCC 288