SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for a declaration of title and for possession on the basis of the sale deed dated 6-5-1974 executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff on a consideration of Rs. 10,000/ -. The defendants-1 and 2 are the appellants. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. The sale deed was executed by the first defendant and her husband together. However it is not in dispute that the first defendant was the owner of the suit property which is a house situated at Thambuchctti Palya, Bangalore South Taluk. ( 2 ) THE defendants did not dispute the execution of the sale deed and the considerationagreed upon by the plaintiff and the first defendant and her husband. However they pleaded that the plaintiff did not pay the consideration amount into the hands of the first defendant and no possession was delivered pursuant to the sale deed, therefore the sale deed did not have the effect of transferring title to the plaintiff. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that defendant No. 1 along with her husband agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff on a consideration of rs. 10,000/- and accordingly along with her husband she executed the sale deed on 6-5-1974 which was also registered on that day. The sale deed recites that the possession has been delivered. However it is not in dispute that there was no actual delivery of possession. The finding recorded by the Courts below is that consideration was paid into the hands of the husband of the first defendant who was one of the executants of the sale deed. ( 4 ) NEVERTHELESS, Sri Munivenkatappa,learned Counsel for the appellant contends that as admittedly the first defendant was the owner of the property she was entitled to receive the consideration amount and the same ought to have been paid to her and not to her husband. ( 4 ) NEVERTHELESS, Sri Munivenkatappa,learned Counsel for the appellant contends that as admittedly the first defendant was the owner of the property she was entitled to receive the consideration amount and the same ought to have been paid to her and not to her husband. Even if it is held that the Court below is correct in arriving at such a conclusion which goes to establish that the agreed consideration amount was not paid into the hands of the real owner and actual delivery of possession of the suit property did not take place, pursuant to the sale deed, it is not possible to hold that the decree under appeal suffers from any legal infirmity. ( 5 ) IN the light of the contentions urged, thefollowing points arise for consideration:1) Whether non-payment of consideration amount would lead to invalidity of the sale deed? 2) Whether the non-delivery of actual possession would make the title of the vendee imperfect? ( 6 ) POINT No. 1: Section 54 of the Transferof Property Act provides that, sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid or part promised. In the instant case it is not in dispute that a sum of rs. 10,000/- was the price agreed between the parties. Sale deed also recites that the price agreed between the parties was Rs. 10,000/ -. If the vendor executes the sale deed without receiving the consideration amount as agreed and the sale deed is executed and registered, whether it can be held that such a sale deed does not have the effect of conveying the title. As the sale deed can be executed even on the consideration promised to be paid, the fact that the agreed consideration amount is not paid will not introduce a defect in the sale and will not affect the title conveyed under the sale deed. In the instant case there is a finding that the amount has been paid in the hands of the husband of the 1st defendant. Even if it is held that it ought to have been paid in the hands of the 1st defendant, it was open to the 1st defendant to seek recovery of the consideration amount which according to her was not paid to her. Even if it is held that it ought to have been paid in the hands of the 1st defendant, it was open to the 1st defendant to seek recovery of the consideration amount which according to her was not paid to her. On the contrary, defendants were satisfied by putting-forth a plea that nonpayment of consideration amount into the hands of 1st defendant amounted to or resulted in, invalidation of the sale deed. But such a contention cannot gain ground, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is not a case of sale without consideration. A mere fact of non-payment of consideration will not make the sale deed fictitious, defective or invalid as long as the sale is effected on the consideration agreed upon; of course, non-payment of the amount of consideration may sometimes be used as a piece of evidence to show that the sale was not intended to operate or to be acted upon. But in this case, there is no evidence adduced to prove that the sale was not intended to be acted upon or that it was nominal and sham. If really the consideration amount was not paid, the first defendant ought to have taken appropriate legal proceeding for recovery of the same. Therefore, on the plea of the 1st defendant that no consideration amount was paid into her hands even though it was agreed to, the sale cannot be invalidated. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered in the negative. ( 7 ) POINT No. 2:- The second point relatesto non-delivery of possession. Apart from the fact that there is a recital in the sale deed that the possession of the suit property had been delivered, even if it is accepted that actual delivery of possession did not take place pursuant to the sale deed, it is open to the vendee to seek delivery of possession in an appropriate suit. When once there is a registered sale deed executed on an agreed amount of consideration, the vendee is entitled to possession of the property sold. The fact that the possession had not been delivered at the time of registration of the sale deed, does not disable the vendee to seek possession of the property alienated to him and it also does not make the title passed under the sale deed imperfect. The fact that the possession had not been delivered at the time of registration of the sale deed, does not disable the vendee to seek possession of the property alienated to him and it also does not make the title passed under the sale deed imperfect. Accordingly, point No. 2, is answered in the negative. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I do notsee any substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Hence the appeal is not admitted and it is dismissed. --- *** --- .