JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Plaintiff is the Appellant against a reversing judgment. He executed a registered sale deed (ext. C) on 17-2-1956 in favour of the Defendant for Rs. 100/-. His case is that the document is nominal, no consideration was paid and the possession remained with the Plaintiff. There was 3, proposal to get the marriage of his daughter with the Defendant and with that end in view the Defendant was kept in the Plaintiff's house as a Gharjoin (son-in-law). The daughter had not attained puberty, and as the Defendant pressed upon the marriage to be performed soon, the Plaintiff executed the document (ext. C) only to give the Defendant an assurance that the marriage would be performed. 2. The defence case is that in fact consideration was paid and possession was delivered. The Plaintiff actually gave his daughter in marriage to him, but later on got her remarried to one Krushna Chandra Panda. 3. The trial court accepted the Plaintiff's case and declared that the sale deed, ext. C, conveyed no title to Defendant which, is a nominal one. The lower appellate court held that ext. C was genuine and real, that Rs. 100/- was paid as consideration and the custody of the document came from the Defendant. He accordingly dismissed the suit, 4. On the admitted position that the Defendant was a stranger and was residing with the Plaintiff, much importance cannot be attached to the question of possession or custody of the document, ext. C in this case. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant was residing with him so as to marry his daughter, while according to the defence, the Defendant had already married the Plaintiff's daughter. Whichever story may be true, the fact remains that Defendant was residing with the Plaintiff. The suit was filed on 6-10-1956 within a period of 8 months from the date of execution and it is not unlikely in those circumstances for the Defendant to get the custody of the document also. 5. The most crucial finding which stares the Plaintiff in the face is the one relating to consideration. The lower appellate court believed the defence evidence that Rs. 100/- was paid. In fact the Plaintiff examined none in support of his case of non-passing of the consideration. 5. The most crucial finding which stares the Plaintiff in the face is the one relating to consideration. The lower appellate court believed the defence evidence that Rs. 100/- was paid. In fact the Plaintiff examined none in support of his case of non-passing of the consideration. The lower appellate court had the correct approach in saying that the onus was on the Plaintiff to establish that no consideration passed. In this case execution is admitted by the Plaintiff who merely says that it is a nominal one. There is, however; a further finding that the consideration paid was inadequate. The trial court found that the value of the suit property would the Rs. 1000/- and the lower appellate court did not set aside this finding. The factual position therefore is that the suit property is worth Rs. 1000/- but had been sold for Rs. 100/-. The Plaintiff's case that it is a nominal one is not acceptable. On this finding the Plaintiff cannot have any tenable contention that title did not pass to the Defendant 6. Section 25 of the Contract Act lays down that an agreement made without consideration is void. Explanation 2, appended to the section, says that an agreement to which the consent of the promisor is freely given is not void merely because the consideration is inadequate; but the inadequacy of the consideration may be taken into account by the Court in determining the question whether the consent of the promisor was freely given. A reference may be made to the Illustrations (f) and (g). In this case, therefore, the inadequacy of the consideration is a fact which the Court could have taken into account in considering whether the Plaintiff's consent was freely given. But such a case was not advanced in the plaint or at any stage. In the trial the Plaintiff took the stand that no consideration was at all paid and the whole document was nominal. In such circumstances the Plaintiff would derive no advantage out of the fact that inadequacy of the consideration could be taken into account in determining the extent or otherwise of the free consent. 7. The appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs throughout. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed