The central legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the sale of tangible immovable property by a registered instrument results in a prima facie transfer of title to the vendee, and the vendor's only remedy for non-payment of the price is to sue for the recovery of the unpaid consideration.

JUDGMENT :-

The judgment and decree dated 25-2-1987 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Karanjia in Title Appeal No. 4 of 1986 confirming the judgment and decree dated 23-12-1985 passed by the learned Munsif Karanjia in Title Suit No. 13 of 1983 are assailed in the Second Appeal filed by the defendants of the said suit.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts which are necessary for effectual adjudication of the suit are as follows:

The respondents as plaintiff, filed Title Suit No. 13 of 1983 for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction with other consequential reliefs. The disputed lands appertaining to Khata No. 4 of Khadipal mouza in the district of Mayurbhanj. Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 inherited the said property from their mother Krushna Dehury. On 30-9-1974 defendants 6 and 7 sold the suit lands by a registered sale deed to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 5001- and delivered possession thereof. In the year 1975 the plaintiff raised paddy on the land. But then, defendant No.

1 and father of defendant Nos. 2 to 5 forcibly removed the paddy, consequently a proceeding was initiated under Section 379, IPC in the Court of learned SDJM, Karanjia. During pendency of the said case, the plaintiff came to know that defendant Nos. 6 and 7 subsequently cancelled the sale deed by executing a deed of cancellation on 9-10-1974. Thereafter the said defendants had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. On the strength of the said sale deed, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 created disturbances and out and removed the paddy. On coming to know about the said fact, plaintiff filed the suit.

After receiving notice, written statement was filed by defendant Nos. 6 and 7 taking the stand that no right, title and interest passed to the plaintiff by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 30-9-1974 as the plaintiff failed to pay the consideration amount. Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 thereafter cancelled the sale deed by executing a deed of cancellation and sold the land to the defendant No.1 and mother of defendant Nos. 2 and 5.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, six issues were framed by the trial Court. To substantiate the case, plaintiff got examined four witnesses and exhibited three documents. Defendants got examined six witnesses and exhibited three documents.

4. After discussing the evidence in extensor, trial Court came to the conclusion that by virtue of the registered sale deed on 30-9-1974. Ext. 3. the plaintiff had acquired valid right, title and interest and that the recitals made in Ext. 3 itself disclose that the consideration amount was paid to the vendors, defendant Nos. 6 and 7 at their house before registration. The trial Court decreed the suit and declared right, title and interest of the plaintiff.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, defendant Nos. 6 and 7 filed Title Appeal No.4 of 1986, which was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge. Karanjia. The only contention raised before the appellate Court was that the sale deed. Ext. 3 executed in favour of the plaintiff by defendant Nos. 6 and 7 did not transfer any title as the consideration amount was not paid and that the said deed was cancelled by execution of a deed of cancellation followed by a subsequent sale deed in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and father of defendant No. 2 to 5. The appellate Court relying upon the recitals made in the sale deed. Ext. 3 executed by defendant Nos. 5 and 7 in favour of the plaintiff and other evidence both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that only after receipt of the consideration amount, the sale deed was executed and by virtue of the sale deed, the plaintiff had acquired valid right, title and interest. On the basis of such conclusion. the appeal was dismissed.

6. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law.

"Whether on the basis of the sale deed dated 30-9-1974. respondent No.1 acquired title of on the basis of the sale deed dated 10-10-1974