A sale deed for immovable property executed without payment of consideration is void under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and confers no legal title.

Judgment on Board

1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the defendants against the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, in Civil Appeal No.23-A/2012 whereby the First Appeal filed by the defendants have been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2007 passed by Civil Judge Class-I Ramanujganj in Civil Suit No.37-A/2001 has been affirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties shown in Civil Suit are being taken in the present Second Appeal.

3. On 29.10.2015 the appeal was admitted for hearing by this court on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the courts below were justified in granting decree in favour of plaintiff on the basis of Panchnama dated 04.11.1970 (Ex.P/25) on the face of a registered sale deed dated 12.10.1970.”

4. The plaintiff filed a civil suit before the trial court for declaration of his joint title along with defendant No.1 over the suit land of Schedule-A annexed with the plaint; sale deed dated 12.10.1970 with respect to schedule-B property of the plaint be declared as null and void; partition of schedule-A property between plaintiff and defendant No.1 in equal share and in alternative if the trial court comes into conclusion that with respect to challenge of sale deed dated 12.10.1970 is barred by limitation, the schedule-B property should be allotted to defendant No.1 and in lieu thereof 3.96 Hect. of land of schedule-A property shall be declared in favour of plaintiff that he is title holder of the same by virtue of Panchnama dated 04.11.1970. He further prayed the will deed executed by defendant No.2 with schedule-A property is illegal and forged; the order dated 30.10.1996 passed by The Assistant Settlement Officer, Wadraf Nagar in favour of defendant No.2 be declared as null and void and also claimed that after deducting 3.96 Hect. of land of schedule-A property, the remaining property of schedule-A shall be partitioned in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff also for permanent injunction.

5. The plaintiff has pleaded in his plaint that the parties are Brahmin by caste and governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. At the time of Surguja Riyasat, the great grandfather of plaintiff and defendant No.1&2 acquired about 40.36 Acres of land at village Shivri @ Shivari Tehsil Wadraf Nagar, District Suruguja and Surguja State Settlement Patta was granted in the name of Basoli Dubey. During his lifetime, Basoli Dubey was cultivating his land along with his sons. One of the son of Basoli Dubey namely Gaya Dubey died unmarried in the year 1950 and the entire property was cultivated by Basoli Dubey along with his two sons Bhagwan Dev and Harihar Dubey. The daughter of Basoli Dubey namely Pavitri Devi married at Singrouli and since her matrimonial house came under submerged area of Rihand Dam, she came back to her parents house at village Shivari and her father Basoli Dubey gave her 2.75 Acre of land for her livelihood which was accepted by Bhagwan Dev and Harihar Dubey. During his lifetime Basoli Dubey also gave 5 Acres of land to her cousin brother Bhagvat Dubey in his family settlement and total 32.86 Acre remains with Basoli. Basoli Dubey died in the year 1954 and after his death the total property was inherited by his two sons Bhagwan Dev Dubey and Harihar Dubey and they were cultivating jointly.

6. During the passage of time, their family were expanded and they started residing separ