Judgment : GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) ADMITTEDLY Guhi. Rajwar owned 1. 98 acres land, in all 9 plots, appertaining to Khata No. 173 in Village-Bithia. detailed in Schedule A to the plaint. He died leaving behind a son, Panu rajwar and a daughter, Sahadari, defendants i and 2. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF claimed that out of schedule A lands, defendants 1 and 2 by registered sale deed dated 8. 2. 1979. (Ext. 6), sold 66 decimals lands, described in Schedule B to the plaint to him. ( 3 ) IT appears that on 21/4/1979, defendants 1 and 2 cancelled the said sale deed (Ext. 6) and on 27/4/1979 executed another sale deed in respect of (1. 98. acres) entire Schedule A lands in favour of defendants 3 and 4, including Schedule B lands (66 decimals ). Hence, plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over Schedule B lands. ( 4 ) TRIAL Court decreed the suit, holding that, in fact, plaintiff purchased 66 decimals land out of total 1. 98 acres land of Khata No. 173 and as recited in the body of the deed. Ext. 6, entire consideration amount was paid by him. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, Court of appeal below set aside trial Courts decree by impugned judgment and decree and dismissed the suit holding that on account of vague description of vended land in the sale deed, Ext. 6 as also on account of non-payment of consideration amount, plaintiff did not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit land and Ext. 6 was invalid document. ( 6 ) THIS Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:"whether the finding of the court below that the plaintiffs-appellants did not acquire valid title in the suit property can be sustained in view of the fact that it has taken into consideration the defence which was not raised by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (respondent Nos. 1 and 2)further if the finding of the court below can be sustained that the recital in the sale deed with regard to the payment of consideration was vague?" ( 7 ) A perusal of sale deed Ext. 6 reveals that following was specifically recited therein: matter in other language. ( 8 ) PLAINTIFF asserted that entire consideration amount was paid before execution of the sale deed dated 8. 2. 6 reveals that following was specifically recited therein: matter in other language. ( 8 ) PLAINTIFF asserted that entire consideration amount was paid before execution of the sale deed dated 8. 2. 1979 and in this regard aforesaid recital therein was very clear on this point. As such Ext. 6 cannot be said to be a fraudulent deed and assertion of defendants cannot be accepted that no consideration amount was paid. ( 9 ) ON this point, it appears that court of appeal below considered oral evidence and observed that consideration amount for Ext. 6 was not paid and description of vended land being vague, it was not known over which portion of Schedule A lands possession was given to the plaintiff. ( 10 ) MR. Sahay, counsel for respondents submitted that in case plaintiff had already paid the consideration amount before execution of the sale deed as it stood recited in its body, the registrar at the time of admission of execution of the deed must have made endorsement to that effect. There is no merit in this submission. When consideration amount either in full or part is paid before the Registrar at the time of admission of execution of the deed by the executant then only registrar is required to make such endorsement on the deed in token of proof that the said amount was paid in his presence. ( 11 ) I find that it was specifically and clearly mentioned in the body of sale deed (Ext. 6) that entire consideration was already received by executants before execution of the deed. ( 12 ) IT is true that exact location of 66 decimal lands conveyed to the plaintiff was not mentioned in Ext. 6 but there was no doubt that those lands were parts and parcel of total 1. 98 acres lands of Khata No. 173. It also cannot be ignored that defendants 1 and 2 subsequently made transfer in favour of defendants 3 and 4. Simply by cancelling Ext. 6 by a deed dated 21/4/1979 (Ext. B) the said deed (Ext. 6) did not become invalid. Defendants 1 and 2 did not file any suit for setting aside Ext. 6 and on 27/4/1979 executed another sale-deed in favour of defendants 3 and 4. So, defendants 3 and 4 by virtue of the said sale deed acquired right, title and interest only over 1. B) the said deed (Ext. 6) did not become invalid. Defendants 1 and 2 did not file any suit for setting aside Ext. 6 and on 27/4/1979 executed another sale-deed in favour of defendants 3 and 4. So, defendants 3 and 4 by virtue of the said sale deed acquired right, title and interest only over 1. 32 acres lands of Khata No. 173 (total 1. 98 acres (-) 0. 66 decimals already transferred earlier on 8. 2. 1979 by Ext. 6 ). ( 13 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances the parties plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 are at liberty to partition schedule A lands amicably, respectively to the extent of 66 decimals and 1. 32 acres or to file suit for partition. ( 14 ) CONSEQUENTLY, impugned judgment and decree passed by the court of appeal below is set aside and decree passed by trial Court is confirmed, subject to aforesaid observations and directions. ( 15 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed, but without costs. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .