ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants challenging the judgment and decree dtd.31.07.2023 passed by 8th District Judge, Satna in RCA No.210/2019 reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 30.09.2019 passed by 7th Civil Judge Class-I, Satna in RCS No. A/3500187/2015 whereby trial court dismissed the suit in its entirety, which has been decreed by first appellate court.

2. In short the facts are that the plaintiff/respondent 1 instituted a suit for declaration of title, for declaring the order of mutation dtd.24.11.1984 null and ineffective, partition, separate possession, mesne profit and permanent injunction in respect of 1/2 share (i.e. 1.23 acre) of survey No.228/1 area 2.47 acre, situated in Mauja Sherganj, Tahsil Raghurajnagar, Distt. Satna, with the allegations that the suit property belonged to plaintiff's father-Rameshwar and as the plaintiff remained out of Village, therefore, defendants' father-Chhotelal got his name mutated in the revenue record vide panji dtd. 24.11.1984 (Ex.D/4) on the basis of unregistered sale deed dtd.15.01.1970 (Ex.D/15), which is ineffective as against rights of the plaintiff. It is alleged that father of plaintiff namely Rameshwar was having half share in the land area 2.47 acre i.e. 1.23 acre and after death of Rameshwar it was devolved upon plaintiff-Lallu and defendant 12-Suratiya (son and daughter) and the defendants have no right to remain in possession of the land in question. With these averments the suit was filed.

3. As against the case of plaintiff, the defendants claimed that plaintiff's father Rameshwar sold the land of his share vide unregistered sale deed dtd.15.01.1970 (Ex.D/15), on the basis of which name of defendants' father- Chhotelal was mutated with the consent of plaintiff's father-Rameshwar and now the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief in the suit.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that father of plaintiff after receipt of entire sale consideration of Rs.75/- from Chhotelal delivered possession of the land and on that basis name of defendants’ father- Chhotelal was also mutated on 24.11.1984 with the consent of Rameshwar and in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act (in short “the T.P. Act”), such sale is valid and admissible in evidence. He submits that trial court rightly dismissed the suit holding the sale deed (Ex.D/15) to be a valid document, but first appellate court has committed illegality in holding the sale deed to be inadmissible in evidence and in decreeing the suit. With these submissions he prays for admission of the second appeal.

5. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Mst. Jagaribai vs. Ramkhilawan and Ors. AIR 1976 MP 106; Jagannath Singh vs. Shivnarayan 1978 (II) MPWN 185; Koushalbai vs. Nathulal 1978 (I) MPWN 12; Kali vs. Ramadhar 2004 ILR (MP) 495; and Gangappa vs. Lingareddy 2023 (2) KarLJ 176.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent 1/plaintiff supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by first appellate court and prays for dismissal of the second appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Undisputedly plaintiff's father-Rameshwar had 1.23 acre land in his share, which upon death of Rameshwar would devolve upon his son Lallu (plaintiff) and daughter Suratiya (defendant 12). In the present case the defendants have not claimed their rights in the land on the basis of long/adverse possession but have claimed right in the suit property on the basis of unregistered sale deed dtd.15.01.1970 (Ex.D/15) on the basis of which name of Chhotelal was mutated on 24.11.1984 vide mutation Panji (Ex.D/4).

9. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the appellants in respect of validity of sale deed dtd.15.01.1970 (Ex.D/15) on the ground of it being for consideration of Rs.75/- i.e. less than Rs.100/-, is c