Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 79 (CHH)

Manish Shukla v. Anand Kumar Sharma

2016-03-08

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRTVASTAVA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Manindra Mohan Shrtvastava, J. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 16-08-1999 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 112-A/1998, by which, the learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the appellant/defendant. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2/plaintiffs filed a suit against the appellants and deceased-defendant-respondent No. 3-Ramashankar Sharma for declaration and permanent injunction on the pleadings inter alia that the defendant No.5-Ramashankar, father of the plaintiffs received his share in the ancestral property under family partition from his father Sunderlal and thereafter, the partition of ancestral property took place between three sons, plaintiffs and one Prasann Kumar, on 01-06-1964 vide partition deed and thereafter, possession of respective share was also taken by the shareholders. After partition, the defendant No. 5-Ramashankar had no title or possession over the land in dispute. It was also pleaded that one of the brothers-Prasann Kumar died in the year 1979. In the year 1989, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants have applied for demarcation and preparation of 'Rin Pustika' (debt book) in their name. Upon enquiry, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are claiming title and ownership over the land in dispute by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 06-04-1972 said to be executed by defendant No. 5 in favour of defendant's father namely-Madan Lal Shukla. According to plaintiff's, their father (defendant No. 5) was close political associate and friend of one Madanlal Shukla. In order to contest election and acquire the status of local person, Madan Lal required land to be recorded in his name. On the request of Madan Lal Shukla, nominal sale deed was written by defendant No. 5-Ramashankar in favour of Madan Lal Shukla without any consideration and without there being any intention to sell. However, later on, Madan Lal and his heirs taking undue advantage of they being possessed of the sale deed dated 06-04-1972, got their names mutated in the revenue records whereas the possession of so-called property were continued with Ramashankar and plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, at the time of execution of sale deed dated 06-04-1972, the plaintiffs were minor and property falling in their share could not be sold by their father-Ramashankar without obtaining due permission from the District Judge. According to the plaintiffs, at the time of execution of sale deed dated 06-04-1972, the plaintiffs were minor and property falling in their share could not be sold by their father-Ramashankar without obtaining due permission from the District Judge. It was further pleaded that the sale deed is nominal as the recital in the sale deed shows very nominal amount of Rs. 1500/- as consideration for purchase of huge land ad measuring 12.60 acres. On these pleadings, the plaintiff prayed for decree of declaration that the sale deed is null, void and inoperative and prayed for grant of permanent injunction against defendant Nos. 1 to 3. 3. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in their joint written statement denied the case of plaintiffs that the land in dispute was ancestral property. It was pleaded that the land in dispute was self-acquired property of Ramashankar and the plaintiffs have no interest in the property. 'Batwaranama' alleged to be executed amongst the plaintiff and Ramashankar and Prasann Kumar, was a fake document. Ramashankar voluntarily sold the land in dispute in favour of Madan Lal Shukla by receiving adequate consideration and executed sale deed which was duly registered. At the time of mutation, no objection was raised and ever since the date of sale, Madan Lal Shukla and after his death, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are continuing in possession of the property in dispute. The suit is barred by limitation and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have perfected their title by adverse possession. Even if it is assumed that the property in dispute was sold by Ramashankar, it being for legal necessity, is binding on the plaintiff. 4. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit by holding that the sale deed dated 06-04-1972 was nominal one and sham document and it did not pass any title in favour of Madan Lal. Learned trial Court found proved the plaintiffs case that the Madan Lal wanted to contest the elections and on his request, Ramashankar executed sale deed without there being any intention to sell which is evident from nominal sale consideration of Rs. 1500/- whereas the property was ad measuring more than 12 acres with a high rate prevailing at the time of alleged transaction. 1500/- whereas the property was ad measuring more than 12 acres with a high rate prevailing at the time of alleged transaction. Learned trial Court also held that the property was ancestral one and having been partitioned, Ramashankar had no title to sell the land in dispute. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant defendants preferred an appeal. The learned lower appellate Court though concurred with the finding of trial Court, held that the property in dispute was ancestral one, received upon partition by Ramashankar from his father-Sunder Lal but the learned lower appellate Court reversed the finding of learned trial Court with regard to partition by holding that no partition has been proved and the property is therefore, coparcenary property and the property in dispute at the time of alleged sale, was ancestral property, of which, the plaintiff and their father were coparcener. However, with regard to finding that the sale deed was nominal one, learned lower appellate Court affirmed the finding of learned trial Court and dismissed the suit. 6. This anneal was admitted for hearing by substantial questions of law, which are as under : A. Whether in the light of the fact that the 1st appellate Court has reversed the finding of the Trial Court in respect of Ramashankar having share in the suit property, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court could have hem maintained? B. Whether Ramashankar vendor's interest under sale Ex.D-1 validly passed upon purchaser Madanlal Shukla in the interest of defendant Nos. 1 to 4? C. Whether the plaintiffs had no locus to challenge the sale deed executed by Ramashankar i.e. Ex.D-1 dated 06-04-1972 particularly in the light of the finding of the 1st appellate Court that Ramashankar had interest in the said property?" 7. Learned counsel for appellants assailed the impugned judgment of the Courts below by contending that the plaintiffs had no locus to challenge the sale deed as the vendor Ramushankar-defendant No. 4, who executed the sale deed, never assailed the legality of the sale deed by filing any suit. It was further contended that the plaintiffs are sons of Rutshankarand as property of Ramashankar was his self-acquired property, during the lifetime of Ramashankar, sale of property by Ramashankar could not be challenged by his sons/plaintiffs. It was further contended that the plaintiffs are sons of Rutshankarand as property of Ramashankar was his self-acquired property, during the lifetime of Ramashankar, sale of property by Ramashankar could not be challenged by his sons/plaintiffs. It was also argued that even if it is held that the property is ancestral one, vendor was the father of the plaintiffs, who were minors at the time of execution of sale deed therefore, Ramashankar had full authority under the law to sell out the entire property, he being Karta of the family. Further contention is that once execution of sale deed and contents of recital of sale deed evidencing passing of consideration are proved, in the absence of any challenge laid to the sale deed by the vendor, at the instance of the plaintiff, sons if vendor, payment of consideration cannot be disputed. It is further submitted that the adequacy or inadequacy of consideration towards sale of land could be challenged only by the vendor and not by any other person other than the vendor. In the alternative, it is submitted that in view of the finding of learned lower appellate Court that the property was ancestral and jointly held by Ramashankar and Ramashankar had authority to sell his share in the joint family property, therefore, to the extent of share of Ramashankar, sale deed is inoperative as the defendants have acquired undivided share of Ramashankar through registered sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiffs could only challenge sale deed in respect of the land which is in excess of share of Ramashankar. To the extent of share of Ramashankar, sale deed is valid, operative and binding on the parties and to the extent, the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is also argued that the payment of consideration is not one of the essential consideration of sale. Even if no consideration is paid, it is argued, if the intention of the executor was to sell the property, the requirement of sale, as envisaged under Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act is fulfilled and the sale is complete. Reliance has been placed on the judgment Mt. Akli v. Mt. Daho and others, AIR 1928 Patna 44; Sukaloo Basari Satnami and another v. Punau Bodhan Satnami, 1960 MPIJ 1326: ( AIR 1961 MP 176 ); Kaliaperumal v. Rajgopal and another (2009) SCC 193 : ( AIR 2009 SC 2122 ). 8. Reliance has been placed on the judgment Mt. Akli v. Mt. Daho and others, AIR 1928 Patna 44; Sukaloo Basari Satnami and another v. Punau Bodhan Satnami, 1960 MPIJ 1326: ( AIR 1961 MP 176 ); Kaliaperumal v. Rajgopal and another (2009) SCC 193 : ( AIR 2009 SC 2122 ). 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs argued that the findings recorded by the Court below with regard to nature and status of property being ancestral and joint in nature, the execution of sale deed by Ramashankar in favour of Madan Lal did not pass any valid title in favour of Madan Lal. It is also argued that both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the sale was nominal one. Madan Lal made a request of nominal sale deed by taking an amount of Rs. 1500/- in respect of 12 acres of land was only to help out Madan Lal to contest elections. There was no intention to sell the property. Ramashankar and his sons never parted with the possession of the land in dispute. In the absence of there being any intention to sell without consideration paid or promised to pay, essential element of sale is completely absent and the Courts below have rightly held so. It is also argued that the oral evidence led by the plaintiffs clearly proves that sale deed was only nominal one to help Madan Lal to contest elections. Recital in the sale deed was not conclusive but only presumptive which has been rebutted from other evidence. The sale amount being highly disproportionate and wholly inadequate and extremely low, in the circumstances, the only inference which could be drawn and has been rightly drawn by both the Courts below that it was not a case of sale but only a nominal transaction passing no title in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The sale amount being highly disproportionate and wholly inadequate and extremely low, in the circumstances, the only inference which could be drawn and has been rightly drawn by both the Courts below that it was not a case of sale but only a nominal transaction passing no title in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. It is lastly submitted that as both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the property in dispute was ancestral property and the learned lower appellate Court held that no partition had taken place, without there being any cross objection by the defendants in the instant appeal, it has attained finality that the plaintiffs had interest in the joint family property and it being ancestral property, have all the locus to challenge the sale deed executed by Ramashankar as it directly affects their rights and interest in the property in dispute. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for respondents in the case of Sumer v. Akloo, 1985 MPWN 327 , Narendra Nath Thakur v. Mukutram, 1981 MPWN 184 ; Sukaloo v. Punau, 1961 JLJ 138 : ( AIR 1961 MP 176 ). 9. I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused the records. 10. The plaintiffs have come out with specific pleading that the land in dispute was ancestral property of plaintiffs grandfather-Sunder Lal, who had four sons including plaintiffs father Ramashankar Sharma/defendant No. 4. It has been emphatically stated that Sunder Lal had given shares to his four sons including plaintiffs father. The categoric and specific pleading of the property being ancestral in nature, though has been disputed by the appellants/defendants by stating that it was self-acquired property of Ramashankar Sharma, no evidence has been led in this regard. In fact, old revenue document-Jamabandi filed by the defendant-Ramashankar as Ex.D-5 & D-6 proves title over the property held by Late Sunder Lal, grandfather of the plaintiffs, who was holding large chunk of land including the land in dispute which later on devolved upon his sons including plaintiffs father-Ramashankar Sharma. In fact, all the revenue documents placed on record by the defendants shows that the land in dispute were earlier recorded in the name of Ramashankar. In fact, all the revenue documents placed on record by the defendants shows that the land in dispute were earlier recorded in the name of Ramashankar. The defendants have taken alternative plea that even if the property is held to be ancestral one, Ramashankar had also interest over the property being co-sharer and father of minor sons/plaintiffs, he had full authority to sell the property in dispute as guardian in the interest of his minor sons. Both the Courts below have clearly recorded concurrent finding that the property in dispute was ancestral property of the plaintiffs. However, while the trial Court held that the partition had taken place amongst Ramashankar and his sons in the year 1964, relying upon the partition deed dated 01-06-1964, to that extent, the learned lower appellate Court has reversed the finding and held that no partition had taken place and the property continued to be joint property being ancestral in nature in the hands of Ramashankar and his sons. The aforesaid finding of fact has lo be accepted and this Court has to proceed on that premise and in the absence of any evidence of the property in dispute being self acquired property of Ramashankar Sharma-defendant No. 4, this Court has to proceed on the premise that the property in dispute was ancestral in nature. On this issue, no question of law has been framed, therefore, this Court is not required to go into this issue. Moreover, the plea of the defendants throughout has been that no partition had taken place. The finding of the learned lower appellate Court that partition had not taken place, has not been challenged even by the respondents-plaintiffs, by way of cross objection in the appeal. 11. In view of the aforesaid settled factual position obtaining on the records of the case, it is clear that each of the plaintiff being sons of Ramashankar Sharma, acquired interest in the disputed property by their birth, nature of the property being ancestral and the plaintiffs being coparceners. In the absence of there being any partition, it has to be held that all the coparceners which included Ramashankar and his three sons namely Anand Kumar Sharma, Prafull Kumar Sharma and the deceased brother-Prasann Kumar Sharma were having interest in the disputed property, it is not disputed that Prasann Kumar Sharma died on 16-06-1979. In the absence of there being any partition, it has to be held that all the coparceners which included Ramashankar and his three sons namely Anand Kumar Sharma, Prafull Kumar Sharma and the deceased brother-Prasann Kumar Sharma were having interest in the disputed property, it is not disputed that Prasann Kumar Sharma died on 16-06-1979. In view of the admitted position on record, Prasann Kumar Sharma, at the time of his death, was only 16 years of age. Thus, it is clear that in the year 1972, at the time of alleged execution of sale deed by Ramashankar in favour of Madan Lal, Ramashankar and his three sons alive, having interest over the property in dispute including plaintiffs. In the absence of there being any partition, each of the sharer would be having undivided interest and title over every part of the joint property. Therefore, for that reason, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had no locus to challenge the sale deed dated 06-04-1972, Ex.D-1. The finding recorded by the learned lower appellate Court that Ramashankar also had interest in the property, does not take away the locus of the plaintiffs to challenge the sale deed because each coparcener would have equal share over the joint family property along with other coparceners. Therefore, third substantial question of law is answered in the manner that the plaintiffs had locus to challenge the execution of sale deed dated 06-04-1972, Ex.D-1, irrespective of whether ultimately the plaintiffs would succeed or not in proving that the sale deed was void and inoperative being nominal and sham one. 12. The occasion to take up for consideration the first substantial question of law will arise only when this Court reaches to the conclusion that Ramashankar's interest over the property in dispute ultimately passed, by virtue of sale deed dated 06-04-1972, Ex.D-1, in favour of Madan Lal and after his death, upon his sons. Therefore, the second substantial question of law needs to be decided first before taking up for consideration the first substantial question of law. 13. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued before this Court that the Courts below have committed gross illegality in holding that no title passed to Madan Lal mainly confining their consideration on the issue that no consideration was paid or that as per recital, sale consideration was extremely low. 13. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued before this Court that the Courts below have committed gross illegality in holding that no title passed to Madan Lal mainly confining their consideration on the issue that no consideration was paid or that as per recital, sale consideration was extremely low. According to him, even if no consideration is passed, but it can be proved that the intention of the parties was of sale and purchase with promise to pay their part fully or promise to pay partly, later on, the requirement of law to constitute sale as defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act would be fulfilled. He submits that the recitals of the sale deed Ex.D-1 leads to presumption that the defendant No. 4-Ramashankar had clear intention to sell the property in dispute in favour of the Madan Lal. Even if it is taken that the sale consideration was little low, that will not invalidate the sale so as to say that the no title transferred to Madan Lal. It has been urged that once, from the recital of the sale deed, intention is proved, even if full consideration has not been paid, the sale would be complete. 14. The pivotal issue arising for consideration in this case is whether the sale deed dated 06-04-1972, Ex.D-1 ultimately passed title on to Madan Lal, it being sale by registered sale deed or whether it was a sham or nominal document for other collateral purposes. True it is that the sale deed has been executed by the defendant No. 4-Ramashankar on 06-04-1972, Ex.D-1 in favour of Madan Lal, which has been registered by the Registrar, the recital of the sale deed reveal that the property in dispute, ad-measuring 12.60 acres is stated to have been sold for a consideration of Rs. 1500/-. The plaintiffs case, however, has been that the sale was nominal one and there was no intention to sell the property. Pleading of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.4-Ramashankar and Madan Lal were close political associates. Madan Lal was inclined to contest the election. 1500/-. The plaintiffs case, however, has been that the sale was nominal one and there was no intention to sell the property. Pleading of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.4-Ramashankar and Madan Lal were close political associates. Madan Lal was inclined to contest the election. In order to have standing as local resident of constituency, Madan Lal wanted certain land to be recorded in his name and for that purpose, he requested the defendant No.4-Ramashankar, who executed the nominal sale deed, so that, name of Madan Lal is recorded as owner-Bhoomiswami of the land situated in that constituency wherefrom Madan Lal wanted to contest the elections. In order to facilitate this design of Madan Lal, Ramashankar had executed nominal sale deed without there being intention to sell the property without receiving any sale consideration and without parting with the possession. The defendants, on the other hand, stated that Ramashankar sold the property in dispute ad measuring 12.60 acres for a valid consideration of Rs. 1500/- in favour of Madan Lal. Later on, the name of Madan Lal was also mutated in the revenue records in the year 1975 and other records were also corrected. In the above backdrop of dispute between the parties, the question which arises for consideration is whether by virtue of sale deed dated 06-04-1972, Ex.D-1, ownership and title of the property in dispute validly passed on to the Madan Lal, father of the appellant. For the decision of the aforesaid issue, it is necessary to examine the essential element of 'sale' as defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The provision being relevant is extracted herein below: 54. "Sale" defined.-"Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised." xxxx..... As to what are essentials of sale as defined in the Transfer of Property Act, the issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Sukaloo Basari Satnami and another v. Punau Bodhan Satnami, 1960 MPLJ 1326 : ( AIR 1961 MP 176 ) It was held as below :- "The first point which arises in this appeal is whether the sale deed, being without consideration, passed the title in the property to the plaintiff-respondent. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a sale must be (i) by a registered document if it is worth more than Rs. 100; and (ii) there must be a price paid or promised or part-paid and promised. There is little difficulty in holding that title in property can pass by sale even if no consideration is paid provided that the parties intend that it should be paid at some future date. The difficulty arises in the instant case, on account of the fact that the recital that the whole consideration had been paid before the execution of the deed has been found to be false." In the aforesaid decision, essentials of sale as examined by the Patna High Court in the case of Mt. Akli v. Mt. Daho and others, AIR 1928 Patna 44, were noticed that distinction was drawn in that case between the ordinary contract and the conveyance and on interpretation of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, it was held that it is not a essential condition for sale that the purchase money should be paid. Another decision of Patna High Court in the case of Jagdeep Sahay v. Sonu Lal, AIR 1919 Patna 469 was also noticed wherein it was held that in a sale of immovable property, title of the property will pass to the purchaser on the date of sale unless there is a contract between the parties, that title of the property would not be passed to the purchaser, until full consideration has been paid but such contract must be proved by the parties setting it up. Intention being one of the most essential element of sale, was also emphasized, relying upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Chandrashankar v. Abhla Mathur, AIR 1952 Bombay 56. It was held : "This case was referred to in Chandrashankar v. Abhla Mathur, AIR 1952 Bombay 56. After quoting the above observations from Basalingaya's case, AIR 1932 Bom 247, their Lordships examined the facts of that case to see whether the intention of the parties was that title in the property should be passed on the execution of the conveyance without the consideration being fully paid. It was actually found that the recital about the payment of Rs. 699/- as consideration for the sale was false. It was actually found that the recital about the payment of Rs. 699/- as consideration for the sale was false. Still, it was held that as the intention of the parties was to transfer title, the non-payment of the consideration made no difference and the sale deed operated from the date of its execution." 15. Upon review of several decisions of various High Courts, the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Sukalu v. Punau, 1961 JLJ 138 : ( AIR 1961 MP 176 ) proceeded to lay down the principle and arrived at following conclusion: "On a review of the decisions above, we are of the opinion that it is the intention of the parties which has to be looked into to decide whether the sale deed operated as a transfer of interest from the vendor to the vondee on the date of its execution. If this was the intention, then it does not matter whether the whole of the consideration of part of it remained unpaid. Further, where a registered deed of sale purporting to operate as a conveyance on the face of it exists, the burden of proving that it was not so intended is on the party who asserts this fact." 16. The Supreme Court in the case of Kaliaperumal ( AIR 2009 SC 2122 , para 8) (supra) has authoritatively laid down the relevant considerations in the matter of sale as also emphasised on the essential element of intention of the parties as one of the most important consideration for decision of the issue as to whether there was a sale in the eyes of law. It was held :- 16. Sale is defined as being a transfer of ownership for a price. In a sale there is an absolute transfer of all rights in the properties sold. No rights are left in the transferor. The price is fixed by the contract antecedent to the conveyance. Price is the essence of a contract of sale. There is only one mode of transfer by sale in regard to immovable property of the value of Rs. 100 or more and that is by a registered instrument. 17. It is now well settled that payment of entire price is not a condition precedent for completion of the sale by passing of title, as Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. 100 or more and that is by a registered instrument. 17. It is now well settled that payment of entire price is not a condition precedent for completion of the sale by passing of title, as Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. 1882 ("the Act", for short) defines "sale" as "a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised". If the intention of parties was that title should pass on execution and registration, title would pass to the purchaser even if the sale price or part thereof is not paid. In the event of non-payment of price (or balance price as die case may be) thereafter, the remedy of the vendor is only to sue for the balance price. He cannot avoid the sale. He is, however, entitled to a charge upon the properly for the unpaid part of the sale price where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer before payment of the entire price, under Section 55(4)(b) of the Act. 18. Normally, ownership and title to the property will pass to the purchaser on registration of the sale deed with effect from the dale of execution of the sale deed. But this is not an invariable rule, as the true test of passing of property is the intention of parties. Though registration is prima facie proof of an intention to transfer the property, it is not proof of operative transfer if payment of consideration (price) is a condition precedent for passing of the property. 19. The answer to the question whether the parties intended that transfer of the ownership should be merely by execution and registration of the deed or whether they intended the transfer of the property to take place, only after receipt of the entire consideration, would depend on the intention of the parties. Such intention is primarily lo be gathered and determined from the recitals of the sale deed. When the recitals are insufficient or ambiguous the surrounding circumstances and conduct of parties can be looked into for ascertaining the intention, subject to the limitations placed by Section 92 of the Evidence Act." 17. Such intention is primarily lo be gathered and determined from the recitals of the sale deed. When the recitals are insufficient or ambiguous the surrounding circumstances and conduct of parties can be looked into for ascertaining the intention, subject to the limitations placed by Section 92 of the Evidence Act." 17. The legal position, therefore, is that though normally ownership and title to the property will pass to the purchaser on registration of the sale deed with effect from the date of execution of the sale deed, but this is not invariable rule, relevant consideration being the intention of the parties. 18. While the case of the defendants has been that Ramashankar Sharma intended to sell his property to Madan Lal, evidence by recitals of the registered sale deed dated 06-04-1972 by Ramashankar-defendant No. 4, the vendor in his written statement has clearly stated that he had no intention to sell the property to Madan Lal. Supporting the case of the plaintiff, he has pleaded in para 20 of his written statement that the defendant never sold out his land nor received any consideration. It was a nominal sale out of affection and neither any possession was delivered nor Madan Lal ever demanded possession. Ramashankar-defendant No.4 has been examined as DW-3. He has slated in his evidence that he and Madan Lal were members of Jansangh, District Bilaspur. Madan Lal was the President and he was Member. Madan Lal used to contest parliamentary assembly and marketing society elections. When Madan Lal had contested elections from Janjgir constituency, an issue had arisen amongst the party as also amongst the public that he was not the resident of the area and for being associated with the marketing society, one is required to be agriculturist in the concerned district and for contesting parliamentary election, some land of the area should be recorded in the name of Madan Lal as agriculturist. In view of this deliberations, he executed nominal sale deed in favour of Madan Lal for a consideration of Rs. 1500/-for sale of 12.60 acres of land whereas at that time, the value of land was Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 1300/- per acre. In view of this deliberations, he executed nominal sale deed in favour of Madan Lal for a consideration of Rs. 1500/-for sale of 12.60 acres of land whereas at that time, the value of land was Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 1300/- per acre. He has stated that Madan Lal never took possession nor cultivating the land and he has also promised to return the land to Ramashankar and Madan Lal had also stated amongst the family members that land of Ramashankar would be returned. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the land was ancestral property and partition had taken place amongst his brothers in the year 1952-53. Land in dispute, which had fallen to his share, he had partitioned that land amongst his sons. He has disowned that the land was self-acquired. In cross-examination, he has further stated that in the year of registration of sale deed, Madan Lal had contested the election from Kota Legislative constituency and in the year 1973, he had contested the election of marketing society. He has further stated that Madan Lal used to tell him that he would return the land in the year 1977 but it was not returned. Where after, Madan Lal died and request was extended to his wife but land was not returned. Vendor-Ramashankar Sharma deposed in his evidence that there was no intention to sell the property in dispute. The background, in which, the nominal sale deed had to be executed to facilitate Madan Lal in contesting elections, has been stated. 19. The vendor namely-Ramashankar-defendant No. 4 has thus stated the circumstances, under which, nominal sale deed came to be executed. The sale deed dated 06-04-1972, Ex.D-1, is said to have been attested by two attesting witnesses namely Laxmi Chand and Ram Sharan. These two attesting witnesses have been examined as PW-5 and PW-6. 20. Laxmi Chand has stated that Ramashankar and Madan Lal were friends and belonged to one party-'Jansangh'. Madan Lal used to contest the elections but he had no land, therefore, he requested Ramashankar that in order to contest elections, he is required to get the documents of property prepared. On his request, Ramashankar executed the sale deed in respect of 12 acres of land in village Hardadih. Madan Lal used to contest the elections but he had no land, therefore, he requested Ramashankar that in order to contest elections, he is required to get the documents of property prepared. On his request, Ramashankar executed the sale deed in respect of 12 acres of land in village Hardadih. He has further deposed that he was informed that the land is actually not being purchased nor any consideration is being paid but only to facilitate to contest him elections for a token amount of Rs. 1500/-, lands are being recorded in the name of Madan Lal. He has also deposed that he was one of the attesting witness of the document and signed the same. He has further stated that at the time of execution of sale deed, the then market rate was Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 1300/- per acre in Village Hardadih. This witness has been subjected to cross-examination, in which, he has reiterated that he was the witness. He has clearly denied the suggestion that Ramashankar informed him that he wanted to sell his land to Madan Lal and therefore, requested him to accompany. This witness in his cross-examination, has emphatically reiterated that Ramashanka informed that only to get his work done, Madan Lal wanted land to be registered in his name without passing of any consideration. He has stated that he had not signed the document in the presence of the Registrar but signed the document at the place of sitting of document writer. He has stated that he had not gone to the office of Registrar. Nothing could be elicited from the evidence of this witness, so as to believe the testimony on the ground that he had some special reason to depose against Madan Lal and in favour of Ramashankar. 21. Other attesting witness of the sale deed is Ram Sharan, PW-6. He has also clearly stated that Madan Lal and Ramashankar belonged to the same political party and were close associates. Madan Lal used to contest elections but he has no land recorded in his name. In order to show himself as agriculturist of the area, he requested Ramashankar to get sale deed executed in respect of 10 to 12 acres of land, so that he may also claim status of an agriculturist. Madan Lal used to contest elections but he has no land recorded in his name. In order to show himself as agriculturist of the area, he requested Ramashankar to get sale deed executed in respect of 10 to 12 acres of land, so that he may also claim status of an agriculturist. Due to cordial relations, Ramashankar executed the sale deed in respect of 12.60 acres of land of village Hardadih in the name of Madan Lal and he signed t he document as witness. He has further stated that Madan Lal clearly told Ramashankar that it is a matter of faith and he would not cause any harm to children and in times to come, he would execute re-conveyance deed. He has also stated that he, along with one Laxmi Chand, PW-5 had signed the document as one of the witnesses. This witness has also stated that at the relevant time, prevalent market value of the land was Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1200/- per acre and valuation of the land was at least Rs. 12,000/-. In the cross-examination, this witness states that he belongs to the same political party. He has also stated that at the time of talk between Ramashankar and Madan Lal, legislative elections were to be held. In para 9 of his cross-examination, this witness has clearly stated that the registry had taken place without passing any consideration but only due to cordial relation between the parties. The evidence of these witnesses is reliable and nothing has been elicited in their evidence to raise any doubt. 22. From the evidence of these two attesting witnesses, it is clearly proved that there was no intention on the part of Ramashankar to sale huge land ad measuring 12.60 acres for a meager sum of Rs. 1500/- in favour of Madan Lal. On the contrary, clinching evidence of Ramashankar, PW-5 proves that there was no sale consideration and it was only to facilitate recording of certain lands in the name of Madan Lal, so that he may contest elections its local person, Ramashankar as fellow party man and close associate, executed a nominal sale deed in favour of Madan Lal. 23. The plaintiff has examined Badridhar Diwan, PW-2, who belongs to the same political party, to which, Madan Lal and Ramashankar belong. 23. The plaintiff has examined Badridhar Diwan, PW-2, who belongs to the same political party, to which, Madan Lal and Ramashankar belong. He has also clearly stated in his evidence the same story which has been pleaded by Ramashankar in his written statement and what has been stated by two attesting witnesses Laxmi Chand, PW-2 and Ram Sharan, PW-6. He has clearly stated that in order to contest election of Director in a marketing society, it was necessary for a candidate to be an agriculturist. Madan Lal did not have any land in his name, therefore, in order to make him eligible for contesting elections, Ramashankar got some of his lands recorded in the name of Madan Lal. He has also stated that there was no sale consideration and only object was to show on record, some land in the name of Madan Lal. His evidence shows that he was one of close associate of Madan Lal since long and belonged to the same political party. He has further deposed that Madan Lal told him that the land has been given to him by Ramashankar only to facilitate him to contest elections and due to good relations between him but he has no title over the land. He says that at the time when this was told to him by Madan Lal, number of other persons including one Manharan Lal Pandey were present. He has also stated that in the year 1972, the then prevalent market value of the land was Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 2000/- per acre. This witness has been subjected to detailed cross-examination. In para 7 of his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he was told by Ramashankar and Madan Lal that no sale consideration passed and the sale was nominal. He has emphatically denied suggestion that the land was sold by Ramashankar to Madan Lal. This witness is a person of repute and old associate of both Ramashankar and Madan Lal and there is no reason to disbelieve the reliable testimony of this witness. 24. Yet another witness, Manharan Lal Pandey, PW-4 has also supported the case of the plaintiff that he belongs to the same political party and close associate of Madan Lal Shukla and Rama Shankar. He has stated that he was one of the State Minister in the Government of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1968 and had contested many elections. 24. Yet another witness, Manharan Lal Pandey, PW-4 has also supported the case of the plaintiff that he belongs to the same political party and close associate of Madan Lal Shukla and Rama Shankar. He has stated that he was one of the State Minister in the Government of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1968 and had contested many elections. His evidence shows that he was close associate of both Madan Lal and Ramashankar and belongs to the same political party. According to this witness, in the year 1972, Madan Lal wanted to contest elections of marketing society and he wanted certain lands to be recorded in his name. In order to contest elections, he needed to be shown as agriculturist of the area. In this background, some of the lands of Ramashankar were recorded in the name of Madan Lal. He has stated that these lands were situated in village Hardadih. This witness has further stated that many times during sitting with Madan Lal, Madan Lal always used to assure Ramashankar that now elections are over and Ramashankar may get the re-conveyance deed executed in his favour. At that time, Ramashankar and other person stated that if the lands were again recorded in their name, they will have to unnecessarily bear the expenses of registration. This witness has also been subjected to detailed cross-examination and nothing could be elicited to show as to why he was would extend undue favour to Ramashankar to speak false. This witness remained firm on the statement and he also belongs to the same political party and Ex-MLA as also close associate of Ramashankar and Madan Lal both. 25. Tika Ram, PW-3 has been examined by the plaintiff to prove that in a transaction of land which was purchased by his father-Hem Ram in Village Hardadih in the year 1972, his father had paid Rs. 1000/- towards purchase of 1.28 acres of land. He has stated that at that time, rate of the land are Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 2,000/- per acre. 26. The appellant-defendant examined Smt. Suman Shukla, widow of late Madan Lal Shukla. She is not one of the attesting witness but a household lady. 1000/- towards purchase of 1.28 acres of land. He has stated that at that time, rate of the land are Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 2,000/- per acre. 26. The appellant-defendant examined Smt. Suman Shukla, widow of late Madan Lal Shukla. She is not one of the attesting witness but a household lady. She has also admitted in her cross-examination that Madan Lal was a President of District Branch of Jansangh Party and Ramashankar used to come to her house frequently, she also says that Manharan Lal Pandey and Badridhar Diwan, ex.MLA used to come to her house. In her cross-examination, she states that the sale deed, Ex.D-1 was got executed by her husband and she does not know where it was typed. She states that at the time of passing sale consideration in her house, her husband and Ramashankar only were present. According to this witness, money was paid in her house. The evidence of this witness clearly shows that she had not gone to the office of the Registrar nor the sale deed was prepared in her presence. Two attesting witnesses who had signed the sale deed, do not confirm the presence of this witness at the time of execution of the document. 27. Manish Shukla, DW-2, son of Madan Lal Shukla has stated that after purchase of land by his father, revenue records were mutated in his father's name, on which, neither any objection was raised by Ramashankar and his sons nor they had given any notice nor instituted any claim. He states that they are in possession of the lands. DW-3, Ramashankar has supported the plaintiffs case and reiterated the same story and the document, in which, he has executed nominal sale deed in favour of Madan Lal. His evidence is that Madan Lal in order to become eligible to contest election of the marketing society warned that some lands be recorded in his name and to that extent, as fellow party man, executed sale deed in favour of Madan Lal for a nominal amount of Rs. 1500/- whereas rate of the land prevalent at that time, was Rs. 1200/- to 1300/- per acre. He has stated that Madan Lal neither took possession nor culti vated the land. He has been subjected to detailed cross-examination. 1500/- whereas rate of the land prevalent at that time, was Rs. 1200/- to 1300/- per acre. He has stated that Madan Lal neither took possession nor culti vated the land. He has been subjected to detailed cross-examination. In his cross-examination, lie has stated that he was present at the time of mutation and has also explained the reason to get the land recorded in the name of Madan Lal was to facilitate him to contest elections, lie did not raise any objection at the time of mutation, but he had no notice that the land w as mutated in the name of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. he has stated that in the year 1972, Madan Lal contested legislative assembly election and the year 1973, contested marketing society elections. He has also stated in his cross-examination that time and again, Madan Lal expressed that he would execute re-conveyance deed and once he has offered for re-conveyance deed in the year 1977. After death of Madan Lal in the year 1984, he requested the widow and children of Madan Lal to execute re-conveyance deed in the year 1986 and despite all efforts, it was not returned. He has denied suggestion that he has sold the property to Madan Lal. He has denied having given possession of the land in dispute. Defendants witness-Pitambar, is the employee of the defendant No.1 and employed by him as labour. 28. From the oral evidence on record, Ex.P-3, it is also borne out that at the relevant time, market value of the land in village-Hardadih was Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- per acre. According to all witnesses, the consideration never passed on to the Ramashankar. Ramashankar had stated that the rate of the land was Rs.1200/- to 1300/- per acre but sale deed was executed for nominal token amount of Rs.1500/- with intention to facilitate Madan Lal to contest elections without there being any intention to sell the property to Madan Lal. 29. It is thus proved that there was no intention to sell, no consideration was passed nor any possession was handed over. Both the attesting witnesses of the sale deed have clearly stated that it was nominal transaction without there being any intention to sell and passing of title in favour of Madan Lal. 30. 29. It is thus proved that there was no intention to sell, no consideration was passed nor any possession was handed over. Both the attesting witnesses of the sale deed have clearly stated that it was nominal transaction without there being any intention to sell and passing of title in favour of Madan Lal. 30. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant that passing of consideration at the time of execution deed by itself is not sine qua non but sale may be completed with promise to pay, on principles, cannot be disputed. However, in the present case, there is nothing to say that there was any promise to pay and on that basis, with clear intention to sell out the property, Ramashankar executed sale deed in favour of Madan Lal. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff relied upon decisions in the cases of Sumer v. Akloo, 1985 MPWN 327 , Narendra Nath Thakur v. Mukutram, 1981 MPWN 184 to fortify the submission that inadequately low consideration and the attending circumstances proved that it was not a case of sale and the document, Ex.D-1 was only nominal one. The recital of the sale deed are not conclusive but only presumptive in nature. From the clinching oral evidence on record and other attending circumstances including the evidence of attesting witnesses, presumption has been completely rebutted and it is proved that the document, Ex.D-1 was nominal one without any intention of sale of property and without passing of any consideration. 31. Having held that there was no sale of the property and it was merely a nominal sale deed executed only to facilitate Madan Lal to become eligible to contest elections, first substantial question of law has to be answered against the appellant and in favour of respondent. This is so because this Court found that Ramashankar had no intention to sell and without any consideration, he had executed the sale deed. Therefore, it cannot be said that to extent of share of Ramashankar, sale deed shall be operative and declaration to that effect. Once it has been held that there was no sale, even if it is held that Ramashankar also had share and interest in the property, no title will pass to the Madan Lal by virtue of sale deed dated 06-04-1972. 32. In this case, the appellant had moved an application for framing of additional substantial question of law. Once it has been held that there was no sale, even if it is held that Ramashankar also had share and interest in the property, no title will pass to the Madan Lal by virtue of sale deed dated 06-04-1972. 32. In this case, the appellant had moved an application for framing of additional substantial question of law. Though, this Court recorded in order sheet dated 09-02-2015 that the application shall be considered at the time of during the course of hearing, but the appellant did not advance any argument in respect of application for framing of additional questions of law. 33. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. A decree been drawn accordingly.