Non-payment of consideration does not invalidate a sale deed, and a third party cannot contest its validity; possession by trespassers benefits the true owner.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

2. The Appellants in this Second Appeal were the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.110/34 of 1981-I and Appellants before the 1^st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide T.A.No.2 of 1984.

The Respondent Nos.4 to 12 are the successors of the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit vide O.S. No.110/34 of 1981-I and Respondent Nos.4 to 5(h) before the 1^st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide T.A. No.2 of 1984.

The Respondent No.13 in this 2^nd appeal was the Defendant No.5 before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.110/34 of 1981-I and Respondent No.6 before the 1^st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide T.A. No.2 of 1984.

The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in this 2^nd Appeal were the Plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.110/34 of 1981-I and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the 1^st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide T.A. No.2 of 1984.

3. The suit of the Plaintiffs (Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the 2^nd appeal) against the Defendants (Appellants and Respondent Nos.4 to 13 in the 2^nd appeal) vide O.S. No.110/34 of 1981-I was a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, in alternative recovery of possession, if they (plaintiffs) are found to be dispossessed from the suit properties during the pendency of the suit vide O.S. No.110/34 of 1981-I.

The suit properties are Ac.0.061 Dec. of Sabik Plot No.270 under Sabik Khata No.113 in Mouza Kalaraput under Sahid Nagar Police Station, which corresponds to Hal Plot No.675 under Hal Khata No.212 described in Schedule A of the Plaint.

As per the averments made by the Plaintiffs in their plaint in the suit vide O.S. No.110/34 of 1981-I, the suit properties originally belonged to Hadu Baliarsingh and Maheswar Baliarsingh, sons of late Natabar Baliarsingh. The said Hadu Baliarsingh and Maheswar Baliarsingh sold the suit properties to the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 i.e. to Dhadu Sahu, Bhramar Sahu and Loknath Sahu through registered sale deed No.2268 dated 30.03.1960 (Ext.2) and delivered possession thereof. Accordingly, the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 were the owners of the suit properties. While, the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 were the owners and in possession over the suit properties, they (Defendant Nos.3 to 5) sold the same to the Plaintiffs through two registered sale deeds vide registered sale deed Nos.5493 and 5494 dated 10.7.1979 (Ext.1 and Ext.5). The Registered Sale deed No.5493 dated 10.07.1979 was executed by Defendant No.5 (Loknath Sahu) in favour of the Plaintiffs and the Registered Sale deed No.5494 dated 10.07.1979 were executed by the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 (Dhadu Sahu and Bhramar Sahu) in favour of the Plaintiffs. As such, after purchasing the suit properties through the above two registered sale deeds vide registered sale deed Nos.5493 and 5494 dated 10.7.1979 (Exts.1 and 5), the Plaintiffs possessed the same being the owners thereof.

At the time of execution and registration of the sale deed by Hadu Baliarsingh and Maheswar Baliarsingh i.e. Sale Deed No.2268 dated 30.03.1960 (Ext.2) in favour of the vendors of the Plaintiffs i.e. in favour of the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 (Dhadu Sahu, Bhramar Sahu and Loknath Sahu), almost all stages of settlement operation were completed. For which, the final Hal R.o.R. of the suit properties were published in the year 1962 in the names of its previous owners i.e Hadu Baliarsingh and Maheswar Baliarsingh, though, Hadu Baliarsingh and Maheswar Baliarsingh had no interest in the suit properties due to the s