JUDGMENT : The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and for delivery of vacant possession of the same. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 26.07.1990 executed by the defendant/appellant in his favour for a sale consideration of Rs.37,500/-. At the time of execution of the sale, the defendant/ appellant was in possession of the property. Therefore, it was agreed that he would continue to be in possession for three (3) months and he would vacate the same on expiry of the said period. The defendant/appellant did not comply with the said undertaking, instead, he filed a suit in O.S.No.230 of 1991 before the I Additional District Munsif, Puducherry, for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff/respondent herein from interfering with the suit property. The said suit was dismissed on 30.04.1992 holding that the plaintiff therein was not entitled for an order of permanent injunction, as prayed for. Despite the same, the defendant had not handed over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff/respondent. Hence, the suit in O.S.No.105 of 1994 had been filed. 3. The suit is resisted by the defendant/appellant contending that originally the property belonged to one Dharmalingam and he entered into an agreement to sell the suit property along with a thatched house situated thereon in favour of the defendant's wife Saraswathi. Accordingly, the two sale deeds were executed on 27.01.1989, one for the land and the other for the superstructure. Thereafter, the defendant/appellant sold the property on 26.07.1990 to the plaintiff/respondent for a sale consideration of Rs.37,000/-. But the contention of the defendant/appellant is that the plaintiff/respondent had paid only a sum of Rs.20,000/- and the balance sum of Rs.17,000/-, is yet to be paid by the plaintiff/ respondent and that he continued to reside with his sons in the suit property. 4. The plaintiff/respondent has chosen to examine himself as P.W.1 and to mark Exs.A.1 to A.4, before the Trial Court, while defendant also examined himself as D.W.1, besides marking Exs.B.1 to B.5 before the said court. 5. Upon appreciating the above facts, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit declaring the title to the plaintiff/respondent, however, dismissed the suit, in so far as the superstructure thereon is concerned. 6. 5. Upon appreciating the above facts, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit declaring the title to the plaintiff/respondent, however, dismissed the suit, in so far as the superstructure thereon is concerned. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgement, A.S. No. 102 of 2006 was preferred by the plaintiff/ respondent. The learned Appellate Judge decreed the suit declaring the title as well as for recovery of possession. 7. The defendant/appellant aggrieved by the same, has preferred the above second appeal. 8. The only question that has to be decided in the appeal is whether the suit decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent is correct? 9. The execution of the sale deed under Ex.A.1 dated 26.07.1990 by the defendant/ appellant in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent is admitted by both the parties. There is also no dispute with regard to the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.230 of 1991, by the I Additional District Munsif, Puducherry, against the defendant/appellant. Even in O.S.No.230 of 1991, the plaintiff herein had marked Exs.B.1 and B.2, which are the receipt for Rs.37,500/- and the sale deed dated 26.07.1990 respectively. The said sale deed is the document based on which both the suits have been filed. It is not in issue that the sale deed has been executed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent by the defendant/appellant on 26.07.1990. The only question is whether the sale deed was with respect to the vacant site or it included the thatched house also. The receipt, which is marked as Ex.A.2, contained specific recitals that the defendant/appellant was permitted to continue in possession for three months in the suit property, and that, he was required to vacate after the said period is over. From the perusal of the receipt, it is clear that the defendant/appellant intended to sell the vacant site as well as thatched house under Ex.A.2. 10. Thus, having received the entire sale consideration on the date of execution of the sale deed, the defendant/appellant cannot have any right over the suit property. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff/respondent had purchased both the land and the superstructure for valid consideration and that the defendant/appellant cannot have any right over the same. 11. In order to constitute a sale, there must be a transfer of ownership, that is, transfer of rights and interests in the property possessed by the vendors. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff/respondent had purchased both the land and the superstructure for valid consideration and that the defendant/appellant cannot have any right over the same. 11. In order to constitute a sale, there must be a transfer of ownership, that is, transfer of rights and interests in the property possessed by the vendors. Having executed the sale deed, the defendant/appellant cannot retain any part of his interest or right over the property, as it would not make the sale complete. Even assuming for a moment that the entire sale consideration was not paid, as alleged by the defendant/appellant, he could only have a charge over the property. The real test is the intention of the parties. 12. Admittedly, the parties had intended to transfer the ownership of the property and price was fixed and the same was paid. A reading of Ex.A.1, the sale deed, would go to show that there was a sale and defendant/appellant had executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and presented it for registration, admitted its execution and also received the sale consideration, after which, the sale was registered. The only additional circumstance is that the defendant/appellant wanted to be in possession for three months thereafter. Since the title in the property had already passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and even if the total sale consideration has not been paid, the same would not become invalid. Further, the defendant/appellant failed to prove that part of the sale transaction was not paid to him and hence, he is also not entitled to the statutory charge over the property for the unpaid part of the sale price. 13. Hence, the lower appellate court rightly decreed the suit and there is no interference called for in the said judgement. 14. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court dated 23.11.2009 passed in A.S.No.102 of 2006 are confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition shall stand closed.