JUDGMENT - B.N. DESHMUKH, J.:---This appeal is filed by plaintiff who filed a suit for cancellation of agreement of sale dated 21-10-1974 Exhibit 49 and subsequent sale deed dated 24-12-1974 Exhibit 50. 2. The property involved is a godown which consists of two parts namely southern and northern parts. The northern part consists of constructed shops while the southern part consists of tin shed. The constructed shops in northern side are in occupation of tenants. There is no dispute that the plaintiff was owner of both the parts; southern as well as northern part. The agreement dated 21-10-1974 relates to the southern part while the sale deed dated 24-12-1974 relates to the whole godown including southern and northern parts. 3. Agreement dated 21-10-1974 is executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant regarding southern part while the sale deed is executed by him also in favour of defendant on 24-12-1974. The plaintiff had challenged these two documents on the ground of misrepresentation and fraud. It is his case that he was in financial difficulties as he owed debt and also he was required to pay municipal taxes. He executed the documents by way of security without any consideration. The plaintiff at one stage has also claimed that the brothers of defendant who were Advocates have mis-represented to him as they informed the plaintiff that they will get repaired the shops and after the recovery of amount of Rs. 10,000/- out of the rent, the property will be given back to him by executing a separate deed of relinquishment to that effect. The plaintiff has also contended that contents of both the documents were never read over to him nor any consideration is paid to him. 4. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that both the documents were executed by mis-representation and fraud. It was further held that plaintiff has also proved to establish the execution of documents without consideration. 5. The learned Counsel Shri Loya, appearing for the appellant, contended that the agreement though relates to southern part only but the saledeed relates to the entire godown including southern and northern parts. Though the consideration mentioned in agreement and also in the saledeed is the same, the area covered under sale deed is practically more than twice than the area covered by the agreement. Though the consideration mentioned in agreement and also in the saledeed is the same, the area covered under sale deed is practically more than twice than the area covered by the agreement. Inspite of this, the consideration remains the same. According to him, the suit of the plaintiff should have been decreed on the ground of mis-representation and fraud on the basis of evidence on record. He has further contended that there is no consideration qua agreement nor the saledeed. 6. The main points which arise for determination in the present case are:- 1) Does plaintiff prove that defendant got the agreement of sale dated 21st October, 1974, executed from him by mis-representation and fraud? 2) Does plaintiff further prove that the sale deed dated 24 December, 1974, executed from him by mis-representation and fraud? 3) Does plaintiff prove that he did not receive any consideration under both the documents or under either of them? 7. I have gone through the evidence on record. Both the documents are registered documents. The defendant has produced witnesses to establish the execution of the agreement and the payment of amount. The defendant has examined Kamlakar at Exhibit 42 who had participated in the deliberations and he has paid the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- at the time of agreement and at the time of execution of saledeed. There is also evidence of defendant himself at Exhibit 46. He has deposed that the whole transaction was gone into by his brother Kamlakar and he paid the consideration of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/-. Though he has said that the payment is not made in his presence, the third witness Shahajat Khan who has attested the documents supports the version of Kamlakar brother of defendant that the payment was made and the documents were executed. Apart from this fact, the plaintiff himself has admitted in his cross-examination that he had accepted the payment mentioned in the agreement before the Sub-Registrar. He has further admitted the payment at the time of saledeed. Exhibit 45 is the notice given by the Advocate of the plaintiff to the defendant. From bare reading of the notice Exhibit 45, it is clear that the execution of agreement of sale is not only admitted but receipt of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is also admitted. He has further admitted the payment at the time of saledeed. Exhibit 45 is the notice given by the Advocate of the plaintiff to the defendant. From bare reading of the notice Exhibit 45, it is clear that the execution of agreement of sale is not only admitted but receipt of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is also admitted. In the notice, it was further mentioned that the plaintiff is willing to refund an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant. Though the manner of receipt of Rs. 10,000/- is disputed, the fact that the plaintiff received amount of Rs. 10,000/- was admitted by notice Exhibit 45. In view of the admissions of the plaintiff regarding the acceptance of payment at the time of saledeed, it must be held that the plaintiff received Rs. 30,000/- as per the agreement of sale dated 21-10-1974. After going through the entire evidence, I do not find that the document agreement of sale is tainted by mis-representation or fraud. The claim of the plaintiff for cancellation of agreement of sale is, therefore, required to be negatived. 8. The plaintiff himself has shifted stands from time to time. This aspect of the matter is considered by the trial Court in detail and it would be unnecessary to go into that question over and again. 9. The plaintiff has also sought cancellation of sale deed dated 24 December, 1974, on the ground of mis-representation and fraud. Though the plaintiff has failed to establish mis-representation and fraud regarding agreement of sale but the claim of the plaintiff regarding saledeed will have to be considered differently because the agreement of sale relates only to the southern portion and does not include northern portion of the godown at all. The agreement of sale speaks of consideration as Rs. 30,000/- so also the consideration under the sale deed is also of Rs. 30,000/-. It cannot be disputed that the property covered under the saledeed is practically twice as big as the property covered under the agreement. If the southern part of the property mentions consideration of Rs. 30,000/-, it is difficult to understand as to how twice as much area can be sold for the same consideration under a sale deed. Shri Jethalia, appearing for the respondent, contended that there was a mistake in description of the property in the agreement of sale. If the southern part of the property mentions consideration of Rs. 30,000/-, it is difficult to understand as to how twice as much area can be sold for the same consideration under a sale deed. Shri Jethalia, appearing for the respondent, contended that there was a mistake in description of the property in the agreement of sale. The parties in fact intended at the time of execution of agreement to sell the entire property including both southern and northern parts. The mistake is, according to him, rectified by mentioning the entire property in the saledeed which is subsequently executed. I am unable to appreciate this contention because if there would have been such a mistake and the parties really intended to sell the property consisting of southern as well as northern part then such a mistake would have been mentioned in the saledeed. It is not at all mentioned in the sale deed. There is no other documentary evidence on record produced by the defendant to show regarding intention of plaintiff to sell the entire property consisting of southern as well as northern part. The say of plaintiff regarding he has not read over the saledeed though he has presented the document for registration will have to be accepted because on earlier occasion about couple of months back the agreement was executed between the plaintiff and defendant regarding only southern part. If plaintiff had really read the document carefully, he would have objected to inclusion of northern part in the saledeed also. The misrepresentation is, therefore, inherent and which is clear by reading the documents themselves. The plaintiff who intended only to execute agreement of sale regarding southern part but in the saledeed both the southern as well as northern parts were mentioned though the consideration remains the same. The acceptance of Rs. 20,000/- will also indicate that the plaintiff all the while entertained a notion that what he is selling under the saledeed is only the southern part as per the agreement and not the northern part at all. The mis-representation is, therefore, apparent and requires no further proof. 10. I, therefore, find that there was no mis-representation or fraud regarding execution of the agreement of sale dated 21 October, 1975, but there was certainly mis-representation for the execution of saledeed dated 24 December, 1974. The mis-representation is, therefore, apparent and requires no further proof. 10. I, therefore, find that there was no mis-representation or fraud regarding execution of the agreement of sale dated 21 October, 1975, but there was certainly mis-representation for the execution of saledeed dated 24 December, 1974. The plaintiff never intended to sell northern part of the property which is described as godown No. 9. The claim of the plaintiff regarding the execution of the saledeed will have to be accepted. 11. Shri Jethalia has contended that in view of my finding that there was no mis-representation or fraud qua agreement of sale dated 21 October, 1974, the saledeed to that extent will have to be retained. To avoid any multiplicity of the proceedings, the contention of Shri Jethalia will have to be accepted because not only the execution of agreement of sale is admitted but the entire consideration under the agreement is received by the plaintiff. I, therefore, direct that saledeed dated 21 October, 1974, shall be treated to be regarding the southern part of the godown as per the agreement of sale dated 21 October, 1974. The saledeed has no relevance to the northern part of the godown. The sale deed in connection with the property other than mentioned in the agreement of sale dated 21 October, 1974, shall stand cancelled and the plaintiff is entitled for the same. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. ------