IMPORTANT POINT
Subsequent purchasers cannot assert defenses of the original vendor without seeking leave under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC, especially when the original sale deeds have been canceled.

JUDGMENT :

(1) Defendants No. 4 and 5 have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Dhamtari in Civil Suit No. 24-A/07 dated 08.04.2010 whereby the civil suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and sale-deeds executed by the plaintiff in favor of defendant No. 1 and subsequent sale-deeds executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendants No. 4 & 5 were canceled.

(2) Facts of the present case are that the plaintiff was the owner of suit properties bearing S. No. 127/2 ad-measuring 0.87 acre and 127/3 ad-measuring 1 acre situated at Village Kurud, Tehsil-Kurud, District-Dhamtari. He executed registered sale deeds of both plots in favour of defendant No. 1 on 19.04.1996 and 02.08.1996 in consideration of Rs. 46,000/- and Rs. 50,000/-, respectively. The sale deeds are exhibits P/1 and P/2. The plaintiff filed a civil suit claiming therein relief of cancellation of sale-deeds dated 19.04.1996 and 02.08.1996 executed in favor of defendant No. 1 and in the alternative, refund of Rs. 96,000/-with interest and till the same is handed over, compensation of Rs. 500/- per day. He also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from alienating the property. The civil suit was filed on the premise that the sale consideration of Rs. 96,000/- was not paid to the plaintiff. It is pleaded that earlier, one cheque bearing number 9633006 of Rs. 50,000/- with a promise to pay the remaining Rs. 46,000/- later, was handed over to the plaintiff but when that cheque was presented to the bank, it got dishonoured. After that, defendant No. 1 promised to make payment in cash and the cheque was returned to defendant No. 1. It is further pleaded that defendant No. 1 failed to make payment, therefore, a civil suit was filed for cancellation of sale deeds. During the pendency of the civil suit, defendant No.1 alienated the property through two sale deeds dated 27.03.2004 and 29.03.2004 in favor of defendants No. 4 and 5, who are the appellants herein. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement and denied the plaint averments. A specific stand was taken by defendant No. 1 that registered sale deeds were executed in his favour by the plaintiff after receipt of the entire consideration and the same is specifically stated in the sale deeds. Defendant No. 1 further pleaded that the sale deeds were executed in the presence of witnesses and the suit property got mutated in his name. Defendant No. 1 cited the revenue proceedings and orders passed by the revenue authorities. With regard to Cheque No. 9633006, defendant No. 3, i.e. Electricity Department filed a written statement and denied the plaint averments. Defendants No. 4 and 5 filed their written statement and took a plea that they were bona-fide purchasers. It is pleaded that the suit property was recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 and in the revenue records, the name of defendant No. 1 was entered and he was the ostensible owner of the property, therefore they purchased the property bonafidely after payment of sale consideration. The trial Court framed issues and held that:-

(i) sale-deeds dated 19.04.1996 and 02.08.1996 were executed without consideration on account of mutual consent and faith;

(ii) no consideration was received by the plaintiff while executing the registered sale-deeds in favor of defendant No. 1 ;

(iii) a cheque dated 05.03.1997 was given against part of consideration to the plaintiff by defendant No. 1;

(iv) sale-deeds dated 19.04.1996 and 02.08.1996 are null & void;

(v) defendant No. 1 is not entitled to get the electricity connection from defendant No. 3;

(vi) defendant No. 1 failed to prove that cheque of Rs. 50,000/- was given to the plaintiff against the loan;

(vii) defendants No. 4 & 5 are not owners of the suit property as defendant No. 1 failed to prove that possession was handed over to them.

The Trial Court decreed the suit and cancelled the sale deeds dated 19.04.1996, 02.08.1996, 27.03.2004 and 29.03.2004 a