JUDGEMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. Instant appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgement and decree dated 27/01/2018 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya in Civil Suit No.11-A/2012 wherein suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed. The plaintiff has filed the instant appeal against the judgement and decree.

2. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiff owned a house at Ward No.9, Mouharpara at Manendragarh, District Koriya. The house was comprised over khasra No.104/17 and a sale deed was executed on 11/06/2012 in favour of respondent No.1, Smt. Ranju Singh. The sale consideration was agreed to be Rs.16 lakhs. It is pleaded in the said house, four tenants were in occupation and according to the plaintiff on 10/06/2012 since he was in dire need of money, he expressed his desire to sell the said property though it was valued higher but agreed to sell it for Rs.16 lakhs. On next day, the sale deed was scribed and was presented before the Sub Registrar, Manengragarh. Plaintiff believing the statement of the respondent/purchaser scribed his signature over the sale deed with an understanding that the sale consideration would be paid to them. After the signature was scribed over the sale deed and was presented before the Sub Registrar, since the presentation of the document was at about 5 pm in the late hours, the respondent promised and assured that he would be bringing the amount of sale consideration but after long wait, no one turned up and thereafter the registry office was closed. It is stated the plaintiff was sanguine of the fact that the amount of sale consideration would be paid on the next day as the registry is not complete but amount of sale consideration was never paid. The allegation was made that with the connivance of the Sub Registrar, fraud was played on the plaintiff and a sale deed got executed without payment of the sale consideration. Therefore after exchange of the notice and complaint to the police when sale consideration was not paid, a suit for declaration and injunction was filed wherein prayer was made to cancel the sale deed.

3. The respondent on the contrary, denied all the averments of the plaint allegation and stated that initially in the month of May, 2012 an agreement was executed wherein the plaintiff had received an amount of Rs.10 lakhs and subsequently the remaining amount of sale consideration of Rs.6 lakhs was paid before the Sub Registrar and the plaintiff admitted those facts before the Registrar. Therefore, the sale deed was executed after due payment of sale consideration in its entirety. The counter claim was made with the averments that the defendant had requested to stay at suit premises for one month on payment of rent but eventually with passing of the time since premises was not vacated, prayer for possession was claimed for.

4. The learned trial court framed the issues, (i) as to whether the sale deed was got executed by the defendants without sale consideration and by exercising fraud and conspiracy, (ii) as to whether the deed of sale would become ineffective thereby right/title of the plaintiff would be in existence. The Court arrived at a finding that fraud is not proved and further in respect of the ownership, it was also held in negative qua the plaintiff. Further the court framed the issue whether the court fees has been paid properly or not and gave a finding that proper court fees was not paid by plaintiff and eventually suit was dismissed. With respect to the counter claim, the learned trial court dismissed the counter claim. Hence, the instant appeal is by the plaintiff against the dismissal of the civil suit and a cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC is by the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant refers to the document Ex.P-1 which is a copy of the sale deed and would submit that the presentation of the document before the Sub Registrar was at 5 pm on 11th June, 2012 and as per the pleading after