1 FA No. 354 of 2019 2025:CGHC:41923-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 354 of 2019 Arising out of judgment and decree dated 12.04.2019 passed in Civil Suit No. 50-A/2015 by the 8 th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.] 1. Chandrakala Verma W/o Late Satya Lal, aged about 65 years; 2. Arjun Verma S/o Late Satya Lal, aged about 36 years; 3. Dharmaraj Verma S/o Late Satya Lal, aged about 37 years All above are R/o Village Bodri, Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4. Shailendri Verma D/o Satya Lal, aged about 35 years; 5. Sahdev Verma S/o Late Satya Lal, aged about 26 years; Appellants No.4 & 5 are R/o Mahavir Apartment, Ganga Nagar, Mangla, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Plaintiffs versus 1. Ravindra Goyal S/o Late Rameshwar, aged about 40 years, R/o Village/Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector, Bilaspur. 3. Geetanjali Infra and Engineering Services through the partner, S.R. Sahu S/o M. R. Sahu, R/o Geetanjali House, ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.08.22 15:46:15 +0530 2 FA No. 354 of 2019 Ameri-Road Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents/Defendants For Appellants :- Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- None. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment On Board (19.08.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. The appellants/plaintiffs have preferred the instant first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (for brevity “CPC”) calling in question legality, validity and correctness of judgment and decree dated 12.04.2019 by which the 8th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short ‘trial Court’) dismissed the Plaintiff’s Civil Suit No.50-A/2015 finding no merit. (Parties hereinafter will be referred as per the ranking given and status shown in the suit before the trial Court) 3 FA No. 354 of 2019 Brief facts:- 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop:- (i) The original plaintiff Satyalal Verma, [who died during the pendency of the suit] sold the suit land admeasuring 2.29 acres to defendant No.1 for sale consideration of ₹11,45,000/- vide sale deed dated 26.11.2010 and said to have delivered the peaceful possession thereof to defendant No.1. Thereafter, suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 04.05.2015 for declaration of sale deed dated 26.11.2010 (Ex.P/1) null and void as the same was executed without sale consideration and obtained by fraud on the part of defendant No.1 by promising that he would help him in purchase of another property situated at Parsia, admeasuring 25.89 acre. (ii) During the pendency of the suit on 13.01.2016, defendant No.1 alienated the part of the suit land admeasuring 0.50 acre and delivered the possession of the same in favour of defendant No.3. Consequently, the plaint was filed and relief was sought to declare the 4 FA No. 354 of 2019 sale deed dated 26.11.2010 null and void as the said sale deed has been executed in favour of defendant No.1 by playing fraud and also sought the relief that if the plaintiffs are not found in possession of the suit land, defendant No.3 be directed to hand over the possession to the plaintiffs. It appears that the principal averment made in the plaint is that the sale made by the original plaintiff Satyalal Verma in favour of defendant No.1 without sale consideration and, therefore, no title has been passed in favour of defendant No.1. (iii) Defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying the allegation stating inter alia that he has purchased the suit land admeasuring 2.29 acres from the landlord/original plaintiff Satyalal Verma by registered sale deed dated 26.11.2010 for a sale consideration amount of ₹11,45,000/- and his name has been executed in the Revenue records. It has been further stated that the market value of the suit land is ₹64,89,000/- and as per the said value of the suit land no proper Court fee has been paid by the plaintiffs and also the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation as per Article 56 of 5 FA No. 354 of 2019 the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity “ Act of 1963”), therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. (iv) In the written statement of defendant No.3, it has been stated that he has purchased the part of suit land admeasuring 0.50 acre from defendant No.1 for a sale consideration of ₹ 21,81,600/-. It has further been stated that to escape from the payment of proper Court fee, the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs, therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed. Issues and findings therein:- 3. The trial Court in paragraph No.7 of its judgment has framed as many as 5 issues and answered accordingly, which states as under:- वाद प्रश्न निनष्कर्ष 1. क्या ग्राम – बोदरी, प०ह०न०-1 रीजस्वा निनरीक्षक मडल वा तहसील-निबोल्ह, जिजल- निबोलसीप!री म" स्थिस्$त भू&निम खसीरी न0- 544 रीकबो 0. 332, ह(क्टे(यारी, खसीरी न0-549, रीकबो 0.393 ह(क्टे(यारी एवा खसीरी न0-553, रीकबो 0.202 ह(क्टे(यारी क! ल रीकबो 0.927 ह(क्टे(यारी अ$त, (2.29 एकड़) भू&निम क निवाकया पत्र वाद द्वारी प्रनितवाद क्रमक-1 क( पक्ष म" निदनक-26.11.2010 क निनष्पनिदत निबोन निवाक्रया प्रनितफल क( निनष्पनिदत निकया गया ह3 ? "नह4" 2. क्या वाद द्वारी वाद क उनि6त म&ल्याकन करी पयाप्त न्याया शु!ल्क अद निकया गया ह3 ? "नह4" 3. क्या वाद द्वारी प्रस्त!त वाद सीमयावाजि: बोजि:त ह3 ? "ह;" 6 FA No. 354 of 2019 4. क्या वाद द्वारी प्रनितवाद क( पक्ष म" निदनक-26.11.2010 क निनष्पनिदत निवाकया पत्र शु&न्या घोनिर्षत निकया( जन( याग्या ह3 ? "नह4" 5. सीहयात एवा व्याया ? " निनर्णया क@ कनिडक- 19 क( अन!सीरी वाद द्वारी प्रस्त!त वाद निनरीस्त निकया गया" Finding of the trial Court:- 4. The trial Court in principle dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the sale deed dated 26.11.2010 was issued without sale consideration. Secondly, the sale deed was barred by limitation as per Article 56 of the Schedule attached to the Act of 1963 and furthermore, Court fee has not been paid. Submissions of the parties:- 5. Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit by recording a finding which is perverse to the records. He would also submit that the trial Court ought to have held that the sale deed is without sale consideration and furthermore, the suit is not barred by limitation and the plaintiff was not required to pay Court fee on the market value of the suit property. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 7 FA No. 354 of 2019 6. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/defendant No. 1, would support the impugned judgment and decree and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs. He would also submit that defendant No. 1 is a bona fide purchaser of part of the suit land which he has purchased from original plaintiff Satyalal Verma vide sale deed dated 26.11.2010 for a sale consideration of ₹11,45,000/- and furthermore the suit was barred by limitation, as such, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and decree and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs. 8. None appeared on behalf of respondent/defendant No.3, though served. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 8 FA No. 354 of 2019 Discussion and analysis:- 10. The points for determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC in the instant appeal are as under:- (I) Whether the trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff’s suit is barred by limitation ? (II) Whether sale deed dated 26.11.2010 by which title has been passed in favour of defendant No.1, is without sale consideration ? Answer to Question No. I :- 11. The original plaintiff Satyalal Verma had executed the sale deed vide Ex.P/1 in favour of defendant No.1 on 26.11.2010. Thereafter, Satyalal Verma, filed suit for declaring the sale deed null and void on the ground of fraud on 02.05.2015 which was instituted on 04.05.2015, which the trial Court has dismissed as the same was barred by limitation. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Article 56 of the Schedule attached to the Act of 1963, which states as under :– PART III- SUITS RELATING TO DECLARATIONS Description of suit Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run 9 FA No. 354 of 2019 56. To declare the forgery of an instrument issued or registered Three years When the issue or registration becomes known to the plaintiff. 12. Article 56 of the Act of 1963 applies only to suits where the main relief asked for is the declaration of the forgery of an instrument and the time runs under this Article from the date when the issue or the registration becomes known to the plaintiff. In the instant case, the issue or the registration of the sale deed dated 26.11.2010 was known to original plaintiff Satyalal Verma, as he was the party in the sale deed dated 26.11.2010, therefore, he was required to file the suit for declaring sale deed 26.11.2010 null and void on the ground of forgery on or before 24.11.2013 from that date, i.e. within the period of three years, whereas, the suit was filed by original plaintiff Stayalal Verma on 02.05.2015 which was instituted on 04.05.2015. As such, the suit was admittedly barred by limitation by virtue of Article 56 of the Schedule attached to the Act of 1963 and the trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff’s suit is barred by limitation and we hereby affirm the said finding of the trial Court which is based on the 10 FA No. 354 of 2019 documentary evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Answer to Question No.II:- 13. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the sale was without consideration as defendant No.1 promised to help him in getting the suit land admeasuring 25.89 acres situated at village Parsia. Though, defendant No.1 purchased the said land along with Devkumari and Smt. Laxmi Dubey on 12.01.2011, but the possession of the said land could not be delivered to the plaintiffs/appellants herein leading to the filing of the suit for declaring sale deed dated 26.11.2010 null and void. In this regard, Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity “Act of 1882”) may be noticed herein:- “54. “Sale” defined.— “Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made.— Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may 11 FA No. 354 of 2019 be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale.— A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. 14. The definition of sale indicates that there must be transfer of ownership from one person to another i.e. transfer of all rights and interest in the property, which was possessed by the transferor to the transferee. The definition further indicates that the transfer of ownership has to be made for a “price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised”. Price thus constitutes an essential ingredient of the transaction of sale. (See : Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through legal representatives and others 1 .) 15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and another 2 has held that the words “price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised” indicates 1 (2020) 7 SCC 366 2 (1993) 3 SCC 573 12 FA No. 354 of 2019 that actual payment of the whole of the price at the time of execution of the sale deed is not a sine qua non for completion of the sale. Furthermore, in the matter of Kaliaperumal v. Rajgopal an another 3 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that as per Section 54 of the Act of 1882 payment of entire price is not a condition precedent for completion of the sale by passing of title and observed as under:- “17. It is now well settled that payment of entire price is not a condition precedent for completion of the sale by passing of title, as Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“the Act”, for short) defines “sale” as “a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised”. If the intention of parties was that title should pass on execution and registration, title would pass to the purchaser even if the sale price or part thereof is not paid. In the event of non-payment of price (or balance price as the case may be) thereafter, the remedy of the vendor is only to sue for the balance price. He cannot avoid the sale. He is, however, entitled to a charge upon the property for the unpaid part of the sale price where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer before payment of the entire price, under Section 55(4)(b) of the Act. 3 (2009) 4 SCC 193 13 FA No. 354 of 2019 18. Normally, ownership and title to the property will pass to the purchaser on registration of the sale deed with effect from the date of execution of the sale deed. But this is not an invariable rule, as the true test of passing of property is the intention of parties. Though registration is prima facie proof of an intention to transfer the property, it is not proof of operative transfer if payment of consideration (price) is a condition precedent for passing of the property. 19. The answer to the question whether the parties intended that transfer of the ownership should be merely by execution and registration of the deed or whether they intended the transfer of the property to take place, only after receipt of the entire consideration, would depend on the intention of the parties. Such intention is primarily to be gathered and determined from the recitals of the sale deed. When the recitals are insufficient or ambiguous the surrounding circumstances and conduct of parties can be looked into for ascertaining the intention, subject to the limitations placed by Section 92 of the Evidence Act.” 16. We have gone through the contents of the sale deed dated 26.11.2010 which clearly recites that original plaintiff Satyalal Verma has obtained ₹11,45,000/- from defendant No.1 and delivered the possession to defendant No.1. As such, in our considered opinion, the plaintiff intended to transfer the suit property in favour of defendant No.1 and after obtaining sale 14 FA No. 354 of 2019 consideration executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the sale deed is binding on the plaintiffs and is not null and void. 17. Furthermore, there is one more fact i.e. as per sale deed dated 26.11.2010 the plaintiff had delivered the possession to defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 has further delivered the part of the suit land to defendant No.3 to the extent of 0.50 acre for a sale consideration of ₹21,81,600/- vide Ex.D/2, but the plaintiffs did not seek further relief for delivering possession from defendant No.1 which ought to have been claimed in view of proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and on that count also the plaintiff’s suit was not maintainable in absence of consequential relief of recovery of possession. (See :- Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra and another 4 ) Conclusion: 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs finding no merit and we do not find any good ground warranting interference in the 4 1993 Supp (3) SCC 129 15 FA No. 354 of 2019 impugned judgment and decree. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 19. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Ankit