The court reaffirmed that clear recitals in a sale deed demonstrating vendor's receipt of consideration validate title transfer, regardless of the absence of endorsement by the registering authority.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing judgment. The suit, C.S. No.5 of 2012 filed by the plaintiff was decreed by judgment dated 28.09.2013 followed by decree passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dhenkanal. Said judgment and decree was reversed and set aside in appeal in RFA No.89 of 2013 vide judgment dated 20.07.2015 followed by decree passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Dhenkanal, which is impugned herein.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status in the Court below.

3. The plaintiff‟s case, briefly stated, is that she had purchased Ac.0.100 dec. of land appertaining to Sabik Khata No. 2593 and Sabik Plot No. 5645 corresponding to Hal Khata No. 2920 and Hal Plot No. 5645/9250 from one Sanatan Sahoo vide RSD No. 1059/84 and was in possession thereof. Her purchased land was in between the plot of the Mahadeb Sahoo on the south and Kokila Sahoo on the north. As there was no passage to approach her land, she purchased another patch of land measuring Ac.0.010 dec. vide RSD No.1060/84 from its owner Mahadeb Sahoo, which was used by her for such purpose since the date of purchase. After death of the plaintiff‟s husband and their vendor, Mahadeb Sahoo, the defendant No.1 encroached upon the passage by locking the entry gate of the plaintiff on the ground that the sale deed No. 1060/1984 in respect of the passage had been cancelled by a cancellation deed. As such, the plaintiff obtained certified copy of the deed of cancellation bearing No. 1202 of 1988 and came to know that same has been executed without any notice to her on the false ground of non-payment of consideration. On such facts, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against respondents from interfering in her peaceful possession, declaration of the deed of cancellation as null and void and to declare her right, title and interest over the suit land on the basis of the RSD bearing No. 1060/84.

4. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement, inter alia, stating that Mahadeb Sahoo had executed RSD No. 1060/84 without any legal necessity but the sale had not materialized for non-payment of consideration amount. For such reason, the original registered sale deed and the registration receipt was not handed over to the plaintiff which was subsequently cancelled vide deed No. 1202 dated 05.03.1988. As such, no title was passed in favour of the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the suit land was not identifiable and that the so called passage claimed by the plaintiff is actually a part and parcel of the defendants‟ building area. The plaintiff was rather using the suit land for transporting her building materials for construction of her house on her plot with permission of the defendants and being instigated by local touts she had claimed title. Further, no ROR was issued in favour of the plaintiff and besides, the suit was also barred by limitation.

5. On such pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for determination.

i. Whether the suit is maintainable?

ii. Whether there is cause of action for filing of the suit?

iii. Whether the plaintiff has acquired right title and interest over the suit land by purchase vide registered sale deed bearing no. 1060 dt.21.02.84 /27.02.84?

iv. Whether the plaintiff’s possession over the suit land can be confirmed?

v. Whether the deed of cancellation bearing no. 1202/99 dt.31.05.88 can be declared as null and void?

vi. Whether the defendants can be permanently restrained from entering over the property and