The main legal point established in the judgment is that a sale deed without payment of price is void and of no legal effect under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT :

Rajani Dubey, J. -

01. The defendant No.1/appellant herein has filed this appeal being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 09.09.2015 passed by II Additional District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, in Civil Suit No.06A/2014, whereby the learned trial Court-decreed the suit for declaration and injunction in favour of plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein.

02. Before the learned trial Court, this is an admitted fact that on 25.02.2012, an agreement for sale of suit property was executed between plaintiff/respondent No.1 and defendant No.1/appellant. On 25.02.2012, the plaintiff received Rs.4,89,000/- by cheque and Rs.11,000/- in cash as advance by defendant No.1/appellant.

03. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of property bearing Kh. No.33 & 62 total area 8.60 hectare situates at village Piplawand, District Bastar (C.G.). The declaration was sought to the effect that the sale deed dated 30.08.2012 be declared null and void and the injunction be issued defendant and he be restrained from creating third party interest and from dispossessing the plaintiff and the mutation of the defendant No.1/appellant be set aside. The claim in the suit was based inter-alia on the allegation that on 25.02.2015 plaintiff/respondent No.1 entered into an agreement with defendant No.1/appellant for sale of the property in question for consideration of Rs.19,72,000/-. It was alleged that the amount to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid as a part performance and the remaining amount was paid by the defendant No.1/appellant through cheque bearing No.000006 dated 01.03.2013, but the said cheque could not be encashed due to stop payment and meanwhile the registered sale deed has been executed without full payment of the amount of the consideration. It was alleged that defendant No.1 by playing fraud got executed the sale deed in his favour. Despite of repeated reminders the balance amount has not been paid. Accordingly, the suit was filed for declaration and injunction.

04. In written statement, the defendant No.1/appellant herein denied all the allegations made in the plaint and stated that according to the agreement, the defendant No.1 was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and in-fact, he has paid the amount of part performance to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was specifically averred in the written statement that after execution of agreement, the defendant No.1 came to know that the land in question is not in possession of the plaintiff and same has been encroached by the villagers and the villagers not handing over the possession to the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 requested the plaintiff to return the amount of part performance and cancelled the agreement, but he plaintiff has assured that he will remove the encroachment and possession will be handed over to him. On 05.07.2012, the plaintiff has assured the defendant No.1 that after execution of the sale deed the possession will be handed over. The defendant No.1 has issued cheque for remaining amount of sale consideration and there was sufficient fund in the account of the defendant No.1 and the cheque was issued with an understanding that it will be encashed after handing over the possession to the defendant No.1. The sale deed was executed on 30.08.2012 thereafter, the plaintiff without handing over the possession of the property tried to encash the cheque issued by the defendant No.1. When the appellant came to know he has instructed the bank for stop payment and on such instruction the cheque was bounced.

05. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and it was held by the learned trial Court that the defendant No.1/appellant herein by playing fraud and without paying full amount of consideration got executed the sale deed. It was also held by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff is in possession of the l