Once a sale deed is executed and registered, the title of the property transfers from vendor to vendee irrespective of the payment status unless the intention to retain title based on unpaid consideration is clearly established.

JUDGMENT :

D.DASH, J.

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2016 & 11.03.2016 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in R.F.A. No.1 of 2014.

The Appellant, as the Plaintiff, had filed Civil Suit No.573 of 2006 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baripada for declaration of his title over the suit land and its recovery of possession from the Respondent (Defendant). The suit having been dismissed, this Appellant as the unsuccessful Plaintiff had carried the Appeal under section 96 of the Code which has also been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.

3. Plaintiff’s case is that he was the recorded tenant of the suit land measuring Ac 0.05 decimal better described in Schedule ‘A’ of the Plaint. He with his mother Laxmi were possessing the said land. After the death of Laxmi when the Plaintiff was possessing as its exclusive title holder, on the request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff executed a registered sale deed on 05.09.1984 (Ext.C) in favour of Defendant for a consideration of Rs.5000/-. It is stated that out of total consideration, the Plaintiff received Rs.800/- from the Defendant and the rest had not been paid. It was agreed that the rest consideration amount would be paid on the next date. It is further stated that in the sale deed, which was registered, there has been manipulation in getting it written that the entire consideration amount had been paid which was not at all the fact. When the Plaintiff did not get the entire consideration for the said transaction, he did not deliver the possession of the suit land in favour of the Defendant and as such continued to possess the suit land as before. The Plaintiff thereafter having several times requested the Defendant to pay the balance consideration, he remained silent. It is stated that the sale deed standing executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant is just on pen and paper without any legal force and effect. In view of all these, the Plaintiff came to file the suit.

4. The Defendant, in his written statement, while traversing the plaint averments has asserted to have purchased the suit land from the plaintiff on payment of full consideration which was agreed at Rs.5000/-. It was stated that after the Plaintiff sold the suit land to Defendant, he made an application for mutation of the suit land in his favour and the Plaintiff then had never objected to the same. It is stated that the Plaintiff has no further right, title and interest over the suit property after he has sold the same and the suit is not entertainable.

5. The Trial Court, on the rival pleadings, having framed five issues, has answered the crucial issue upon detail discussion of evidence and their evaluation in holding that the sale deed dated 05.09.1984 is valid and binding upon the parties. The Plaintiff had sold the property in suit to the Defendant and thereby the title over the same has passed an the hands of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff thus being non-suited by the Trial Court when carried the First Appeal, there also he has tasted the defeat.

6. Mr. P. C. Jena, learned counsel for the Appellant (Plaintiff) submitted that the findings of the Courts below that the registered sale deed dated 05.09.1984 is valid and binding upon the parties more importantly, the Plaintiff is not the outcome of just proper appreciation of evidence on record in the backdrop of the pleadings keeping in view the settled position of law holding the