Honble SINGH, J. – This is defendants Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5.3.1987. (2). The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession of the apartment and recovery of mesne profit. The case pleaded by him was that it was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff shall purchase the house for a sum of Rs. 11,999/-. He gave a cheque for Rs. 4,500/-. The remaining amount was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. In pursuance of the agreement, the sale deed was executed and registered. The plaintiff became entitled for the possession of the accommodation. (3). The appellant contested the suit stating that the sale was to take place for a consideration of Rs. 9000/- only and not for Rs. 11,999/-. The plaintiff paid only Rs. 4500/- but out of it Rs. 3000/- was subsequently returned to him. A sum of Rs. 7,499/- remained balance to be paid at the time of registration of the deed. This amount was not paid. There was no valid sale deed in the eyes of law. No title passed to the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the suit. (4). The learned Single Judge while allowing the plaintiffs appeal, reversed the decree of the trial court and directed the plaintiff to pay the appellant the balance amount of Rs. 7,499/- within a specified period and the suit was decreed. (5). Shri S.R. Surana appearing on behalf of the plaintiff respondent stated that this amount has already been deposited by the plaintiff on 4th May, 1987. But, the possession has not been delivered by the appellant so far. (6). Shri B.P. Agarwal, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that the title of the house could not pass for want of full consideration having been paid to the defendant at the time of registration of the deed. It was the condition precedent. Thus, no title passed to the plaintiff. In suppo- rt of his contention, he referred to the relevant clause of the agreement deed wherein it was mentioned that the balance amount would be payable at the time of execution/registration of the sale deed. Apart from this, the Sub-Registrar had also made an endorsement in the deed that entire amount has not been paid at the time of registration. (7). Apart from this, the Sub-Registrar had also made an endorsement in the deed that entire amount has not been paid at the time of registration. (7). In order to appreciate the contention, the agreement and sale deed were thoroughly examined by us. We do not find any concrete material therein to come to the conclusion that the payment of the entire balance amount of the sale consideration was a condition precedent for executing the sale deed. (8). The issue arises as to at what point for title would pass in favour of the plaintiff in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 54 of the Act defines sale, which runs as follows :– ``54. `Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part promised. (9). The admitted position in this case is that on 4.5.1962 an amount of Rs. 4500/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The remaining was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. But, nowhere it has been specifically men- tioned in the deed that the title would not pass unless the entire balance amount was paid at the time of registration. The sale could be made for the price paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised. If the defendant was of the view that unless entire balance amount was paid, there would be no transfer of title or a valid sale-deed, then he was free not to have signed the document and presented for registration before getting the entire balance amount. Once he executed the sale-deed and presented for registration, impliedly it means that the agreed that the remaining amount could be paid to him after registration of the sale-deed. (10). Merely raising an objection at the time of registration of the sale-deed will not render the deed invalid or void. Apart from this, in the sale-deed itself it has been clearly stated that all the rights and title vested in the defendant stand transferred in the name of the plaintiff. Nothing was kept in reserve for his own self. The sale-deed was final and became absolute after its registration and title passed to the defendant. (11). The defendant, if aggrieved, could have filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed within the prescribed period of limitation but that was not done by him. Nothing was kept in reserve for his own self. The sale-deed was final and became absolute after its registration and title passed to the defendant. (11). The defendant, if aggrieved, could have filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed within the prescribed period of limitation but that was not done by him. It is not open to him to challenge the validity of the same now. (12). The appellants counsel made a reference to a case reported in RamChandra Biharilal Firm vs. Mathuramohan Naik and Others (1), wherein it has been held as under :– ``There are three types of cases of sale deeds, namely, firstly, where there is an independent clause to the effect that the title would pass independently of the passing of consideration; secondly, where there is a dependent clause that the passing of title would be solely dependent on the passing of consideration and thirdly where there is an in- volved clause, where the terms regarding passing of title, passing of consideration and the vendee being made the owner in respect of the property sold are so intermingled that it is very difficult to make out from the recitals a definite position that in fact the parties intended that title would pass independent of the question of conside- ration. (13). Another case referred to is reported in Chandrasekhar Praharaj & Ors. vs. Pitambir Dibya (2), wherein it has been observed that on execution of the sale deed the title passes to the vendee. Mere non-payment of consideration will not arrest the passing of the title but if on interpretation of the documents it could be inferred that the vendor intended to transfer the ownership only after receipt of the entire consideration then, of course, the position would be different. (14). None of these two cases are relevant for deciding the controversy in hand. The recital of the deeds do not make any mention of such a condition. On the other hand, it is mentioned in the sale-deed itself that the title of the vendor stands transferred in the name of the vendee meaning thereby the payment of entire consideration was not of any consequence. The balance amount could be paid by the vendee to the vendor. (15). On the other hand, the respondents counsel referred to decisions repor- ted in Kishan Singh vs. Suraj Prakash (3), Premnarayan & Anr. vs. Kunwarji & Anr. The balance amount could be paid by the vendee to the vendor. (15). On the other hand, the respondents counsel referred to decisions repor- ted in Kishan Singh vs. Suraj Prakash (3), Premnarayan & Anr. vs. Kunwarji & Anr. (4) and Khiria Devi vs. Kameshwar Sao (5), wherein it has been expressed that the title passes to the vendee on execution and registration of sale deed even though the entire purchase money has not been paid. The Supreme Court in the case of Khiria Devi (supra) expressed the view that all rights and privileges of the vendor stand transferred in favour of the vendee through the sale-deed. (16). Examining the deed carefully, we come to the conclusion that the defendant himself executed the sale deed and signed it knowing fully well its implications and presented for registration. In the sale deed no reservation was made of any kind by the vendor for himself. It resulted in passing of the complete title to the vendee. He should not have presented the deed for registration without getting balance amount if he was of the view that payment of balance amount of sale consideration was a condition precedent. No steps for cancellation of sale deed have been taken so far. It is not open for him to contest the right of the plaintiff or getting the possession of the apartment after payment of balance amount of money. (17). It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by limitation. But this point has not been specifically raised in the written statement. No issue was framed on that point and obviously no finding was recorded. Even this point has not been raised before the learned Single Judge. We do not permit him to raise this new point at the time of hearing the Special Appeal. (18). For the reasons given above, we find no merits in this Special Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.