Title passed by a registered sale deed cannot be nullified by a subsequent deed of cancellation, where the recitals in the sale deed are clear and unambiguous and show that title passed independently of the question of consideration.

S. BARMAN, J.

( 1 ) THE unsuccessful defendants in both the Courts below, being defendants Michhu Kuanr, Chema Kuanr and Sarabhu Kuanr, are the appellants in this second appeal from a confirming decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Keonjhar, whereby he confirmed the decision of the learned Munsif, Anandapur, in Title Suit No. 123 of 1951.

( 2 ) THE dispute between the parties relates to a plot of land 1. 83 acres fully described in the plaint schedule. The relevant facts leading to the present litigation between the parties are shortly stated, these: On March 22, 1949 one Aparti Kuanr being defendant No. 2 in the suit (now pro forma respondent No. 5 in this appeal) by a registered sale deed (Ex. 1) sold the suit land-area 1. 83 acres as aforesaid to the plaintiffs-respondents Raghu Jena, Radhu Jena, Juja Jena and Budhj Jena (hereinafter referred to as the Jena Plaintiffs-respondents) for a consideration of Rs. 500/- said to have been received in cash by the said vendor Aparti Kuanr. Eight months thereafter on November 29, 1949 the said Aparti Kuanr appears to have executed a deed of cancellation (Ext. A) of his sale deed (Ext. 1 ). By the said document the said Aparti Kuanr purported to have executed the cancellation on the ground as recited in the document that the said vendees, namely the Jena plaintiffs-respondents got the suit land registered by him (Aparti Kuanr) in favour of the said Jenas without payment of consideration and on terms that they would pay him the same; it further appears from the recitals in the cancellation deed that as the said Aparti Kuanr had some urgent business in Calcutta at that time, the said Jenas promised to pay him the amount after his return from Calcutta and relying on their words he (Aparti) went to Calcutta, that after his return from Calcutta, he asked the Jenas for the money and as they had not paid the amount though they repeatedly promised to pay, he (Aparti) by the said document executed the cancellation refuting all conditions of the sale deed (Ext. 1 ). It is significant that in the said document of purported cancellation (Ext. A), there is a further recital made by the said Aparti Kuanr that if in case he executed another sale deed in favour of some other vendee in respect of the land, the new sale deed will be valid and the vendee therein, on the strength of such sale deed, would be entitled to possession and ownership; and further that the conditions embodied in the registered sale deed (Ext. 1) were by the said deed of cancellation declared by him to be null and void from the date of execution of cancellation deed, namely November 29, 1949 and that the previous sale deed (Ext. 1) would not be treated as having been executed by the said Aparti Kuanr. The following day on November 30, 1949 the said Aparti Kuanr purported to have executed another registered sale deed (Ext. B) whereby the said Aparti Kuanr as vendor appears to have sold the said suit land to the defendants-appellants Michhu Kuanr, Chema Kuanr and Sambhu Kuanr (hereinafter referred to as the Kuanr defendants-appellants) for a consideration of Rs. 1000/- which the vendor Aparti Kuanr stated to have received in cash.

( 3 ) THUS the dispute arose between the Jena plaintiffs-respondents and the said Kuanr defendants-appellants both claiming title to the suit land by virtue of their respective purchases from the common vendor the said Aparti Kuanr, who had undisputably good title to the said suit land 1. 83 acres. The plaintiffs based their title on the registered said deed dated March 22, 1949 (Ext. 1 ). The plaintiffs' case is that they, were obstructed by the defendant Michhu in respect of their possession and enjoyment over Kuanr the suit land. The Kuanr defendants-appellants' rival claim to the suit land was based in the registered sale deed (Ext. B) dated November 30, 1949 by which the Kuanr defendants had purchased the suit land from the same vendor, nainely, the said Aparti Kuanr. In support of their case