The burden of proof of fraud lies on the plaintiff and must be discharged.

Plaintiff is the appellant. Plaintiff instituted the suit for setting aside Ext.A1 the original of which is Ext.B6 sale deed, and also Ext.A2 the original of which is Ext.Bl? Sale deed, and for consequential reliefs. Trial court dismissed the suit. Plaintiff preferred A.S.46 of 1986 before the lower appellate court which also was dismissed.

2. Plaintiff had 7 cents and 125 Sq. links of land in an important place in Quilon town. There was a bunk shop in the said property in which the first defendant who is the nephew of the plaintiff was conducting business. Plain-tiff had raised a loan hypothecating the said property to the Urban Co-operative Bank. He had made part payments. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant undertook to discharge the balance amount on the plaintiff executing a hypothecation with respect to the plaint schedule property (which is half a cent in the said 7 cents and 125 Sq.links) in favour of the first defendant and the first defendant agreed to surrender possession of the bunk and to construct a new bunk in the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff further alleged that, pursuant to the same he had to execute Ext.B6 on the representation by defendants 1 to 3. About one month before the institution of the suit the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant was taking steps to assign the properly to the 4th defendant; feeling suspicious about the same he took the attested copy of the document. Then only he learnt that what he executed was a sale deed. He would further allege that the balance Rs.1, 500/- due to the Urban Bank was not paid by the first defendant as represented by him.

3. Defendants 1 and 4 in (heir joint written statement denied the allegation of fraud. According to them, it was at the instance of the plaintiff that the first defendant who was conducting business in the bunk shop agreed to shift the bunk shop to the plaint schedule property and that the plaintiff with full knowledge executed Ext.B6 sale deed in his favour. Before the execution of the sale deed, he had entrusted the balance loan amount of Rs.1,500/- with the plaintiff for remittance to the bank. It was, after that, Ext.B6 was executed. The allegation of fraud and failure of consideration alleged by the plaintiff was thus denied by defendants 1 and 4. The 51h defendant had only a subsequent charge in the plaint schedule property. The courts below did not accept the case of the plaintiff as regards fraud and on that finding the suit was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, in view of the fact that, the balance loan amount due to the Urban Bank remained unpaid, Ext.B6 is not supported by consideration and on that ground itself the document is void. Learned counsel also contended that the non-payment of the consideration would also support the case of the plaintiff that Ext.B6 is vitiated by fraud and according to him, once it is found that Ext.B6 is vitiated by fraud, Ext.Bl? Executed by the first defendant in favour of the 4th defendant too will also become invalid.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that once the price of the property which is the subject matter of a registered sale deed is shown to have been not paid, the document would become void, cannot be accepted. A conveyance by a registered deed cannot be placed in the same category as agreements void for want of Consideration. If the price of the property which is the subject matter of a registered sale deed is not paid, the vendor cannot on that account get the sale deed avoided. All that, he can do in such circumstance is only to sue for purchase price and that amount will get a charge on the property as unpaid purchase money under S.55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act. This is particularly so where the possession also passed under the document. PW-1 admitted that the first defendant is in possession of the property though he would qualify the same stating that such possession was given on his