JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This is a plaintiffs’ appeal against a confirming judgment. The suit was for recovery of possession and permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that M.S. plot no.323 corresponding to C.S. plot no.230 and a part of plot no.229 situate on the adjacent south of plot no.324. C.S. plot no.230 had been jointly recorded in the name of Kali Mohanty alias Kuli Mohanty and Panu Biswal, father of defendant nos.1 to 4. Kali had built up a residential house on the northern portion of plot no.230. After his death, his three daughters, namely, Buli, Kaushalya and Saranamani succeeded the property. They sold an area of Ac.0.01 dec. appertaining to plot no.230 in favour of the plaintiffs by means of a registered sale deed dated 12.7.1966 and delivered possession. After purchase, the plaintiffs amalgamated the land with their homestead and constructed a cowshed thereon. In the year 1967, father of the defendants filed O.S.No.15/67-I, which was dismissed. Subsequently, Buli, one of the daughters of Kali, transferred ½ dec. of land from the said plot to the plaintiffs by means of a registered sale deed dated 24.8.1970 and delivered possession. Thereafter, the plaintiffs amalgamated the purchased land with their residential plot and mutated the same. On 9.11.77, the defendants disturbed the possession of the plaintiffs and removed the fences. With this factual scenario, they instituted suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. The defendants filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to the defendants, recording of plot no.320 in the name of Kali was wrong. He had no title over the same. Kali was not in possession of any portion of plot no.320. He had not constructed any house over that portion. The daughters of Kali were not in possession of any portion of plot no.230. The sale deeds executed in favour of the plaintiffs are illegal and inoperative. The suit land forms a part of defendants ‘homestead’. They are in possession of the same since the time of their fore-fathers. They have denied the cutting of fences etc. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed eight issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court dismissed the suit with the finding that Kali and his daughters had no title and possession over the suit plot. They have denied the cutting of fences etc. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed eight issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court dismissed the suit with the finding that Kali and his daughters had no title and possession over the suit plot. No consideration was passed under Exts.1 & 2. The vendors were illiterate ladies. The plaintiffs had not satisfactorily discharged the onus lay on them. Due execution of deeds had not been proved by the plaintiffs. The sale deeds are not legal and valid. The plaintiffs had not acquired title over the suit land. Felt aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed M.A.No.36 of 1983-I/O.S.No.3 of 1984-I before the learned Subordinate Judge, Balasore. Learned appellate court held that Kali had title over the suit land. The suit property is the joint property of Kali and Panu. The defendants have right to challenge the passing of consideration because of existence of their title over the suit land. No consideration was passed. It concurred with the finding of the learned trial court that the plaintiffs had failed to prove due execution of sale deeds. Held so, it dismissed the appeal. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the appeal, appellants 1 and 3 died, whereafter their legal representatives have been brought on record. Respondent no.1 died and his name has been deleted. 5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law enumerated in ground no.1 of the appeal memo. The same is:- “1. For that Kali Mohanty and Panu Biswal not being coparceners but co-owners in respect of the suit plot the settle position of law is that there is no unity of title to the suit plot and as such on the death of Kali his three daughters being title holders in respect of the half of the suit plot are entitled to alienate the same under Exts.1 and 2 to the plaintiffs and the defendants being successors of late Panu are not entitled to challenge Exts.1 and 2.” 6. Heard Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that Buli, Kaushalya and Saranamani, the daughters of Kali, alienated Ac.0.01 dec. Heard Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that Buli, Kaushalya and Saranamani, the daughters of Kali, alienated Ac.0.01 dec. of land in favour of the plaintiffs by means of a registered sale deed dated 12.7.1966, Ext.1 for a valid consideration. Thereafter, Buli, one of the daughters of Kali, had alienated ½ dec. of land in favour of the plaintiffs by means of a registered sale deed dated 24.8.1970, Ext.2, for a valid consideration. Learned appellate court held that Kali had a title over the suit property, but then the court below committed a manifest illegality in holding that no consideration was passed and the sale deeds had not been duly executed. The defendants had no title over the suit property. They cannot assail the sale deeds. To buttress the submission, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Suna Gaudani v. Maheswar Sabat, 1971 (2) C.W.R. 992. 8. Learned appellate court held that Kali had title over the suit land. The plaintiffs assert that after death of Kali, her three daughters executed a sale deed in respect Ac.0.01 dec. of land in favour of the plaintiffs by means of a registered sale deed dated 12.7.66, Ext.1 for valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession. Buli, another daughter of Kali, sold ½ dec. of land to the plaintiffs by means of a registered sale deed dated 24.8.1970, Ext.2 for valid consideration. Thus, alienation made by the daughters of Kali is perfectly legal and valid. The daughters of Kali were not parties to the suit. 9. In Vidhyadhar v. Mankikrao and another, AIR 1999 SC 1441 , the apex Court held that in order to constitute a sale, there must be a transfer of ownership from one person to another, i.e., transfer of all rights and interests in the properties which are possessed by that person are transferred by him to another person. The transferor cannot retain any part of his interest or right in that property or else it would not be a sale. The definition further says that the transfer of ownership has to be for a "price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised". Price thus constitutes an essential ingredient of the transaction of sale. The transferor cannot retain any part of his interest or right in that property or else it would not be a sale. The definition further says that the transfer of ownership has to be for a "price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised". Price thus constitutes an essential ingredient of the transaction of sale. The words "price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised" indicate that actual payment of whole of the price at the time of the execution of sale deed is not sine qua non to the completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid but the document is executed and thereafter registered, if the property is of the value of more than Rs. 100/-, the sale would be complete. It is further held that the real test is the intention of the parties. In order to constitute a "sale", the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property and they must also intend that the price would be paid either in praesenti or in future. The intention is to be gathered from the recital in the sale deed, conduct of the parties and the evidence on record. 10. The question does arise as to whether the defendants can assail the sale deeds on the ground of non-passing of consideration? The Patna High Court in Mt. Akli v. Mt. Daho and others, AIR 1928 Pat 44, held:- “It is well established that the passing of consideration cannot be challenged except by parties to the transaction or by those who claim through those parties. It was, therefore, not open to the defendant to question the passing of consideration until the defendant established some sort of title.” The same view was reiterated by this Court in Sudhakar Sahu v. Achutananda Patel and others, I.L.R. 1966 Cuttack 839 and Suna Gaudani (supra). 11. In Umakanta Das and another v. Pradip Kumar Ray and others, AIR 1986 Orissa 196, this Court held that if the term in the sale deed is not ambiguous then any external aid to find out the true intention of the parties cannot be availed of and the narration in the document would be the sole determining feature. If the intention of the parties is clear as found from the recitals, passing of title is in presenti and not kept in abeyance till full payment of consideration. 12. If the intention of the parties is clear as found from the recitals, passing of title is in presenti and not kept in abeyance till full payment of consideration. 12. As held above, the vendors have not assailed the sale deeds. They are not parties to the suit. In view of the same, the defendants cannot challenge the sale deeds on the ground that the contents of the deeds were not read over and explained to the vendors. Moreover, the learned trial court in paragraph-6 of the judgment came to hold that “Of Course, Ext.1 reveals that there is endorsement of the scribe at the bottom of the sale deed to the effect that the Vendors executed the deed by expressing that the contents were correct being read over”. The judgment suffers from internal inconsistencies. In view of the same, the conclusion of the courts below that there was no due execution of the sale deeds is per verse. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 13. A priori, the impugned judgments are set aside. Consequently, the suit is decreed.