A sale deed is void if no consideration was paid; registration does not validate it, and its improper registration does not confer title.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Jain, J.

This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 11.09.1998 :-

(i) Whether the defendant No.1 derived title by virtue of the sale-deed dated 27.11.1967 executed by plaintiff No.2 in his favour?

(ii) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the suit is barred by limitation?

2. This appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. has been filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment passed by appellate Court dated 27.01.1998 whereby judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court dated 15.03.1991 was reversed and suit has been dismissed by the appellate Court. Initially the suit has been decreed by the trial Court.

3. The facts in brief of the case are that a suit was filed by the present appellant before the trial Court in the year 1973. The suit was for cancellation of sale deed dated 27.11.1967 and for recovery of possession in the suit land. The suit was filed by the present appellants on the assertions that the appellant / plaintiff No.2 was the owner of the suit land situated in survey No. 661, 662 and 663. The said plaintiff No.2 was a beggar and he put the defendant No.2 in possession of the said land who was the nephew of plaintiff No.2. The plaint further alleged that the plaintiff No.2 had given some portion of the suit land for construction of house and shop to the plaintiff No.1 about 15 years prior to filing of the suit.

4.It was further alleged in the suit that the plaintiff No.1 had extended a loan of Rs. 700/- to the plaintiff No.2 and the plaintiff No.2 had no means of returning the loan amount and therefore in November, 1967 it was agreed between the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 shall purchase the suit land from plaintiff No.2 for a sale consideration of Rs.1500/- and out of that agreed consideration of Rs.1500/-, the amount of Rs. 700/- which had been loaned to the plaintiff No.2 shall be set off and rest amount of Rs.800/- shall be paid to plaintiff No.2 at the time of execution of sale deed. This was alleged to be an oral agreement between the plaintiffs inter se.

5. It is further alleged in the plaint that the defendant No.1 had coaxed the plaintiff No.2 to sell the suit land to him for Rs.700/- and was regularly pressuring and pestering plaintiff No.2. For that purpose, despite his refusal he kept on pestering plaintiff No.2. Thus, the plaintiff No.2 had accompanied the defendant No.1 on 27.011.1967 to Sidhi and sale deed had been written in Sidhi Court. The document writer wrote the document of sale for consideration of Rs. 350/- but the said document was not read over to the plaintiff No.2 and he was under impression that the document is for consideration of Rs.700/-. The plaintiff No.2 was an old illiterate person. On the next day when he came for registration of document he realized that the document is for Rs.350/- only. Thus the plaintiff No.2 made a police report and objected to execution of the said document. Despite his objection the document was registered on 28.11.1967 by the Registrar.

6. It is further contended in the plaint that the suit land was sold by the plaintiff No.2 in favor of plaintiff No.1 on 28.11.1967 itself and it was registered on that very dat