JUDGMENT : Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.09.2005, passed by the 9 th Additional District Judge (FTC), Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 03-A/2005, whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. 2. The plaintiff has filed a civil suit for vacant possession of the suit property of the land administering 4260 sq.ft. situated in the abadi area at village Sirgitti (Mohalla Najarlal Para/Nayapara), Patwari Halka No. 23, Block Bilha, R.I. Circle, Tahsil and District Bilaspur. The pleadings made by the plaintiff in the plaint that, he purchased the suit property through the registered sale deed dated 17.02.1999 from Govind Singh and came into possession of the same. The plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction against one B.K. Sharma on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit property and non-payment of arrears of rent. During pendency of the suit, the said defendant- B.K. Sharma has died on 24.02.2002, and thereafter, the said suit was declared as abetted. Since, the defendants No. 1 and 2 are in possession of the suit property without there being any authority, he filed the present suit for vacant possession. 3. The defendants No. 1 and 2 contested the claim of the plaintiff and filed their written statement denying the plain averments and submitted that, B.K. Sharma had purchased the suit property from Govind Singh and resided there during his lifetime on his own ownership, and thereafter, B.K. Sharma had sold the suit property to the defendant No. 2- Yakub Hasan through registered sale deed dated 21.03.1999 and constructed a house on the open land of southern side of the suit property and after his death his sons have lent it out. The sons of defendant No. 1 have handed over the possession of the suit property to defendant No. 1 as the caretaker of the suit property and had gone to Delhi. They denied that they are in illegal possession of the suit property. B.K. Sharma had sold the suit property to the defendant No. 2 through the registered sale deed dated 31.03.1999, and subsequently, B.K. Sharma has died on 24.02.2002. They denied that they are in illegal possession of the suit property. B.K. Sharma had sold the suit property to the defendant No. 2 through the registered sale deed dated 31.03.1999, and subsequently, B.K. Sharma has died on 24.02.2002. Since, the defendants are in possession of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed executed by B.K. Sharma in favour of defendant No. 2, the plaintiff has no right or title over the suit property and his suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court has framed the following issues:- 5. In support of the claim, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1, Albert/PW-2, Umesh Kumar Sahu/PW-3 and Govind Singh Rajput/PW-4, and has relied upon the documents- Exhibit P-1, which is the sale deed executed by Govind Singh in his favour, Exhibit P-2, which is the copy of order sheet dated 03.12.2002, passed in MJC No. 56 of 2002. 6. The defendants have examined Yakub/DW-1 and relied upon the documents- Exhibit D-1, which is the sale deed executed by Govind Singh in favour of B.K. Sharma, dated 04.02.1994 and Exhibit D-2, which is the sale deed executed by B.K. Sharma in favour of defendant No. 2/Yakub Hasan dated 31.03.1999. 7. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence laid by the parties, the learned trial Court comes to the conclusion that, prior to the execution of sale deed dated 17.02.1999 by Govind Singh in favour of Mahendra Singh, he already sold 2220 sq.ft. of the suit property to B.K. Sharma on 04.02.1994 through the registered state deed, and therefore, on 17.02.1999, Govind Singh was not competent to execute his sale deed with respect to the entire property in favour of Mahendra Singh. Further that, Govind Singh has stated in his evidence that, he has not received any consideration from Mahendra Singh and Mahendra Singh is his grandson, therefore, the learned trial Court has held that, the sale deed dated 17.02.1999 is a nominal sale deed and title has not been transferred in favour of Mahendra Singh (plaintiff), therefore, he is not entitled for any relief in the suit, and thereby dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that, the plaintiff is the grandson of Govind Singh. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that, the plaintiff is the grandson of Govind Singh. He is claiming his title over the suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 17.02.1999, which was executed by Govind Singh. The sale deed dated 17.02.1999 has not been challenged by any of the parties and even Govind Singh has not challenged the sale deed during his lifetime. Govind Singh has only said that he has not received any sale consideration. Therefore, he could only sue for sale consideration, but the title of the plaintiff on that basis cannot be negativated. He would further submit that, Govind Singh had executed a sale deed on 04.02.1994 in favour of B.K. Sharma only with respect to 2220 sq.ft. of the property, however, the remaining part of the property, i.e. 2040 sq.ft., there is no any deed of transfer in favour of any of the parties, except the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff dated 17.02.1999. He would further submit that, even if the vendor Govind Singh was not entitled to again sold the property of 2220 sq.ft., for the remaining part of the property, he was competent to alienate in favour of the plaintiff and that part of the property can be validly acquired by the purchaser Mahendra Singh in absence of any counterclaim. It cannot be said that, the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff is a nominal sale and no title had been passed in his favour. Even, the defendants had no document with respect to the title of the said part of the property. The learned trial Court has also observed in para 10 of its judgment that, there is no document with respect to transfer of title of 2040 sq.ft. of the property. The said 2220 sq.ft. of the property was transferred by B.K. Sharma in favour of defendant No. 2 through registered sale deed dated 31.03.1999, which is the northern part of the entire property, which clearly reflects from the sale deed executed in favour of B.K. Sharma (exhibit D-1), in which it has been clearly mentioned that, in the southern part of the property, there is an open land of vendor. He would further submit that, even if the sale deed of the plaintiff is to be kept aside, he being the natural successor of Govind Singh, would inherit the property, which he has not transferred to either B.K. Sharma or the defendants. It is also submitted that, the defendant No. 1 has no right or title over the property and merely being the caretaker, he could not acquire the title over this property. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree may be set aside and relief of vacant possession may be granted in favour of the plaintiff. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court is justified, there is no claim of the plaintiff by virtue of natural succession, however, his claim is on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 17.02.1999, which was executed by Govind Singh beyond the capacity to sell the property, because out of the suit property of 4260 sq.ft., 2220 sq.ft. of property was already sold by Govind Singh in favour of B.K. Sharma through registered sale deed dated 04.02.1994 and the said property was again sold to Mahendra Singh on 17.02.1999. Therefore, no valid title has been transferred in favour of Mahendra Singh and he cannot get possession over the said property and the suit of the plaintiff is rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court and appeal may also be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 11. In the present case it is not in dispute that, Govind Singh was having 4260 sq.ft. land at Village Sirgitti, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, out of which he sold 2220 sq.ft. to one B.K. Sharma through registered sale-deed dated 04.02.1994, which was the northern part of the total 4260 sq.ft. of land and remaining 2040 sq.ft. land was retained with Govind Singh in his ownership. The sale-deed dated 04.02.1994 executed in favour of B.K. Sharma is not challenged by any of the parties and the title of B.K. Sharma over the 2220 sq.ft. of land is undisputed. From perusal of the sale-deed dated 04.02.1994 (exhibit D-1) executed in favour of B.K. Sharma, it transpires that, the said 2220 sq.ft. The sale-deed dated 04.02.1994 executed in favour of B.K. Sharma is not challenged by any of the parties and the title of B.K. Sharma over the 2220 sq.ft. of land is undisputed. From perusal of the sale-deed dated 04.02.1994 (exhibit D-1) executed in favour of B.K. Sharma, it transpires that, the said 2220 sq.ft. of land is situated at northern side of total 4260 sq.ft. of land having 30 feet in width and 74 feet in length. In the sale-deed (exhibit D-1), the four-corners of the sold land to B.K. Sharma is mentioned, in which in the southern part, the remaining land of vendor is shown, and thus, it is quite clear that, the northern part of the land admeasuring 2220 sq.ft. (74x30) was sold to B.K. Sharma, through sale-deed dated 04.02.1994. 12. On 31.03.1999, B.K. Sharma sold 2130 sq.ft. of land to defendant No.2- Yakub (Yakubul Hasan), through registered sale-deed. This 2130 sq.ft. of land consists with a house over 1253 sq.ft. In the sale- deed dated 31.03.1999 (exhibit D-2) the sketch map of property was annexed, according to which the total area of 2130 sq.ft. consists with 30x71 feet, including constructed and open part, which clearly shows that B.K. Sharma had sold the property to defendant No.2- Yakub on 31.03.1999, which he was purchased from Govind through registered sale-deed dated 04.02.1994. The defendant No.2 has acquired the title over the property of 2130 sq.ft. 13. It is the case of defendant No.1 that, he was put in possession of the subject property by B.K. Sharma as the caretaker of his property, however, there is no any valid deed of transfer of title in his favour. 14. PW-1, Mahendra Singh, who is the grandson of Govind Singh, has claimed that, he had purchased the property of 4260 sq.ft. from Govind Singh, through registered sale-deed dated 17.02.1999, however said Govind Singh had already transferred the title of 2220 sq.ft. of property to B.K. Sharma through registered sale-deed dated 04.02.1994, and thereafter, Govind Singh was having only 2040 sq.ft. of property under his ownership, which only he can alienate after 04.02.1994. In cross-examination, he admitted that before the registration of sale-deed in his favour, B.K. Sharma has informed him that, he purchased the part of the subject property from Govind Singh and in possession of the same. B.K. Sharma was the tenant of Govind Singh. of property under his ownership, which only he can alienate after 04.02.1994. In cross-examination, he admitted that before the registration of sale-deed in his favour, B.K. Sharma has informed him that, he purchased the part of the subject property from Govind Singh and in possession of the same. B.K. Sharma was the tenant of Govind Singh. Though, he denied the execution of sale-deed dated 04.02.1994 in favour of B.K. Sharma, however the fact remains that, B.K. Sharma had purchased 2220 sq.ft. of property from Govind Singh through registered sale-deed, which has not been challenged by any of the parties. It is also not disputed by the defendants that, the plaintiff Mahendra Singh is the grandson of Govind Singh. 15. Govind Singh has examined as PW-4. He acknowledged the sale- deed dated 17.02.1999 executed in favour of Mahendra Singh with respect to the property of 4260 sq.ft. as he was dire need of money for his treatment. He also admitted in his cross-examination that, he entered into contract to sell the property to B.K. Sharma on 03.02.1994, and thereafter, executed the sale-deed (exhibit D-1) in his favour. At that time, B.K. Sharma was resided in his property. Though, he admitted that he again sold the property to his grandson Mahendra Singh, which he already sold to B.K. Sharma and his grandson has not paid any sale consideration to him, however, the sale-deed dated 17.02.1999 (exhibit P-1) executed in favour of the plaintiff Mahendra Singh has neither challenged by any of the parties nor by Govind Singh himself. 16. DW-1, Yakub Hasan has admitted in his evidence that, he purchased half of the property of B.K. Sharma and half of the property is in possession of defendant No.1- Majhar Ali. He admitted that he purchased 30x71 feet of land from B.K. Sharma, in which a house was already constructed. 17. The sum and substance of the case would be, Govind Singh was owned total 4260 sq.ft. of the property, out of which he sold 2220 sq.ft. of property to B.K. Sharma through registered sale-deed dated 04.02.1994, and thereafter, he was having alienable title over the remaining 2040 sq.ft. of property. Learned trial Court has also considered that with respect to 2040 sq.ft. of land, there is no any valid deed of transfer of title produced by the defendants. of property to B.K. Sharma through registered sale-deed dated 04.02.1994, and thereafter, he was having alienable title over the remaining 2040 sq.ft. of property. Learned trial Court has also considered that with respect to 2040 sq.ft. of land, there is no any valid deed of transfer of title produced by the defendants. The learned trial Court has also considered that, Govind Singh has stated in his evidence that he has not received sale consideration and Mahendra Singh is grandson of Govind Singh and all of them were residing together, therefore, the sale-deed executed in favour of Mahendra Singh is a nominal sale-deed and the transaction between them is not bona fide, and held that, Govind Singh has not acquired any title by the said sale-deed. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court appears to be erroneous in view of the fact that, the sale- deed dated 17.02.1999 (exhibit P-1) has not been challenged by any of the parties, even by its vendor Govind Singh. Once the sale-deed has been registered, the title has been transferred to its purchaser and if the vendor claims that, he has not received the sale consideration, he can sue for recovery of sale consideration, but on this ground alone, the sale-deed cannot be annulled. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of “ Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead, Through Legal Representatives and others ” 2020 (7) SCC 366 , has held that, the sale once has been made and possession delivered, the intention of the parties would be governed by the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the vendor can only ask for the sale consideration. 19. The next question that arises is whether the sale deed executed by Govind Singh in favour of the plaintiff Mahendra Singh, beyond his capacity, is void or voidable? It is also settled law that one cannot transfer title better than what he has. Govind Singh has sold 2220 sq. Ft. of land to B.K. Sharma, through the registered sale deed dated 04.02.1994. Thereafter, he had only 2040 sq. ft. of land in his ownership, but he sold a total of 4260 sq. ft. of land to Mahendra Singh; therefore, the passing of the title to Mahendra Singh over the entire land of 4260 sq. ft. or 2040 sq. ft. Ft. of land to B.K. Sharma, through the registered sale deed dated 04.02.1994. Thereafter, he had only 2040 sq. ft. of land in his ownership, but he sold a total of 4260 sq. ft. of land to Mahendra Singh; therefore, the passing of the title to Mahendra Singh over the entire land of 4260 sq. ft. or 2040 sq. ft. is the issue herein, and if the vendor Govind Singh executed the sale deed for the entire land of 4260 sq. ft. of land, then what would be the status of the sale deed executed by Govind Singh in favour of Mahendra Singh on 17.02.1999, whether it is void or voidable? 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the difference between the "void" and "voidable" document in the case of " Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University and Others ", 2001(6) SCC 534 , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 21 and 22 that:- “21. Clive Lewis in his works Judicial Remedies in Public Law at page 131 has explained the expressions void and voidable as follows:- “A challenge to the validity of an act may be by direct action or by way of collateral or indirect challenge. A direct action is one where the principal purpose of the action is to establish the invalidity. This will usually be by way of an application for judicial review or by use of any statutory mechanism for appeal or review. Collateral challenges arise when the invalidity is raised in the course of some other proceedings, the purpose of which is not to establish invalidity but where questions of validity become relevant.” 22. Thus the expressions void and voidable have been subject matter of consideration on innumerable occasions by courts. The expression void has several facets. One type of void acts, transactions, decrees are those which are wholly without jurisdiction, ab initio void and for avoiding the same no declaration is necessary, law does not take any notice of the same and it can be disregarded in collateral proceeding or otherwise. The other type of void act, e.g., may be transaction against a minor without being represented by a next friend. Such a transaction is good transaction against the whole world. The other type of void act, e.g., may be transaction against a minor without being represented by a next friend. Such a transaction is good transaction against the whole world. So far the minor is concerned, if he decides to avoid the same and succeeds in avoiding it by taking recourse to appropriate proceeding the transaction becomes void from the very beginning. Another type of void act may be which is not a nullity but for avoiding the same a declaration has to be made. Voidable act is that which is a good act unless avoided, e.g., if a suit is filed for a declaration that a document is fraudulent and/or forged and fabricated, it is voidable as apparent state of affairs is real state of affairs and a party who alleges otherwise is obliged to prove it. If it is proved that the document is forged and fabricated and a declaration to that effect is given a transaction becomes void from the very beginning. There may be a voidable transaction which is required to be set aside and the same is avoided from the day it is so set aside and not any day prior to it. In cases, where legal effect of a document cannot be taken away without setting aside the same, it cannot be treated to be void but would be obviously voidable.” 21. In view of the above, the sale deed dated 17-02-1999 executed by Govind Singh in favour of Mahendra Singh is not a void document but a voidable document. A distinction can be made between cases where a document is wholly or partially invalid so that it can be disregarded by any court or authority, and one where it has to be actually set aside before it can cease to have legal effect. When a registered sale deed is voidable, it is valid till it is avoided in accordance with the law. The rights conferred by a registered sale deed are good enough against the whole world, and the sale can be avoided in case the property sold is beyond the capacity of the person claiming under him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh " 1973 2 SCC 535 held in Para 5, that:- "5........... The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh " 1973 2 SCC 535 held in Para 5, that:- "5........... We think that a distinction can be made between cases where a document is wholly or partially invalid so that it can be disregarded by any court or authority and one where it has to be actually set aside before it can cease to have legal effect. An alienation made in excess of power to transfer would be, to the extent of the excess of power, invalid. An adjudication on the effect of such a purported allenation would be necessarily implied in the decision of a dispute involving conflicting claims to rights or interests in land which are the subject-matter of consolidation proceedings. (Emphasis supplied) 22. Under section 32 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Court is empowered to cancel the sale in part or allow it where an instrument is evidence of different rights or different obligations. Section 32 of the Act of 1963, reads as under: "32. What instruments may be partially cancelled? - Where an instrument is evidence of different rights or different obligations, the court may, in a proper case, cancel it in part and allow it to stand for the residue." 23. Therefore, the sale deed executed by Govind Singh in favour of Mahendra Singh would convey title upon the purchaser only with respect to the land of 2040 sq. ft. of the southern side of the total area of 4260 sq. ft., having a measurement of 30 x 68 sq. ft. 24. Further, in the matter of " Indira v. Arumugam and Another ", 1998 (1) SCC 614 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 5 that once the title is established on the basis of relevant documents and other evidence, unless the defendant proves adverse possession, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. The relevant consideration in para 5 is as under: “5. It is, therefore, obvious that when the suit is based on title for possession, once the title is established on the basis of relevant documents and other evidence unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non- suited. The relevant consideration in para 5 is as under: “5. It is, therefore, obvious that when the suit is based on title for possession, once the title is established on the basis of relevant documents and other evidence unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non- suited. ……..” In the present case, the defendant has not raised any plea or led evidence about adverse possession, and therefore, he cannot retain the property more than 2130 sq. ft. or 2220 sq. ft., which B.K. Sharma had purchased from Govind Singh, and the plaintiff is entitled to possession of 2040 sq. ft. of the southern side of the total area of 4260 sq. ft. of land. 25. Since, Govind Singh has already sold 2220 sq.ft. of property of northern side of total property of 4260 sq.ft. to B.K. Sharma through registered sale-deed dated 04.02.1994, he can only alienate remaining part of the property i.e. 2040 sq.ft. of southern side of the property, for which he executed the sale-deed in favour of Mahendra Singh on 17.02.1999. Though, the sale-deed dated 17.02.1999 (exhibit P-1) is with respect to the entire property of 4260 sq.ft., however, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the said sale-deed (exhibit P-1) can be held valid only for remaining 2040 sq.ft. of property of southern side of the total property of 4260 sq.ft. and the decree can be passed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to 2040 sq.ft. of the property. 26. From the aforesaid consideration, the appeal filed by the plaintiff is partly allowed , and it is declared that, he is entitled for possession of 2040 sq.ft. of southern side of the property of total 4260 sq.ft. of property, which was earlier owned by Govind Singh with the measurement of 30 feet width and 68 feet in length as has been reflected from the four-corners of the property shown in the sale- deeds (exhibit P-1, exhibit D-1 and exhibit D-2). To the extent of 2040 sq.ft. of property as mentioned hereinabove, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed. 27. The parties shall bear their own costs. 28. An appellate decree be drawn accordingly.