[2026:RJ-JD:12334]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 105/2026 Smt. Sarla Pareek W/o Shri Ram Kumar, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of 38 Shiv Colony Mahamandir Jodhpur Through General Power Of Attorney Hoder Draham Pareek Son Of Shri Ram Kumar Aged 39 Years Resident Of 38 Shiv Colony Mahamandir District Jodhpur ----Appellant Versus

1. Sawal Ram S/o Dhanna Ram, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Naharo Ki Dhani Rohila Kalla Jhanwar District Jodhpur

2. Dharmendra Kala S/o Panna Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of 3/2 Kudi Bhagtasni Housing Board Jodhpur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raj Bishnoi with Mr. Amit Saran For Respondent(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari with Mr. Gaurav Ranka Ms. Akshita Depura HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

16/03/2026

1. The present first appeal has been filed aggrieved of order dated 10.10.2025 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Trial Court') in Civil Original Suit No.66/2024 (330/2024) whereby the learned Trial Court proceeded on to allow application under Order 7 Rule 11 r.w. Section 151, CPC as filed on behalf of defendant No.1-respondent and as a consequence, proceeded on to dismiss the suit for cancellation of sale deed, as filed by the plaintiff-

appellant.

2. The application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC was filed by defendant No.1 on the ground that no suit for cancellation of sale deed can be maintained only on the count that the consideration amount was not paid.

3. The learned Trial Court while relying upon the Apex Court judgment in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors.; 2020 (7) SCC 366 and of this Court in M/s. Key Pee Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shahjahan Begum; 2015 (3) Civil Court Cases 615 held the suit to be not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, while relying upon the Apex Court Judgments in Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors.; AIR 2022 SC 564 and Shanti Devi (Since Deceased) Through LRs. Goran Vs. Jagan Devi & Ors.; 2025 INSC 1105, submits that an agreement without consideration is void and hence, the suit for cancellation of such agreement/sale is very much maintainable.

5. Per contra counsel for the respondents while relying upon the Apex Court judgments in Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao & Anr.; 1999 (3) SCC 573 and Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji (supra) submits that in a matter wherein the sale is complete i.e. the title has been transferred, the non-payment of the sale price would not affect the validity of the sale. The non-payment of sale consideration cannot be a ground for cancellation of the sale deed. The same could only entitle the plaintiff to sue for recovery of consideration amount but cannot pray for cancellation of the sale deed.

6. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.

7. In the present matter, the execution of the power of attorney (P/A) by the plaintiff is not disputed. Further, execution of the sale deed by the P/A holder is also not disputed. The only averment of the plaintiff is that she did not receive any sale consideration in consequence to the sale. Meaning thereby, the sole ground raised in the plaint for cancellation of sale deed is the non-payment of the consideration amount.

8. In Vidhyadhar (supra), Hon’ble the Apex Court, while dealing with an identical issue observed that, even if whole of the price is not paid, but the document is executed and thereafter registered, the sale would be complete, and the title would pass on to the transferee under the transaction. The non-payment of a part of the sale price would not affect the validity of the sale. Once the title in the property has already passed, even if the balance sale consideration is not paid, the sale could not be invalidated on this ground.

9. But the issue herein would be whether the above ratio would apply in those cases also where not the part/balance, but the complete consideration amount remains unpaid? Herein,