JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 13.12.1991 and the decree signed on 16.01.1992, passed in Title Appeal No. 09 of 1989, by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur, whereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.01.1989 passed by learned Munsif, Jamshedpur, in Title Suit No. 82 of 1982. 3. By the judgment dated 21.01.1989, the suit was decreed with cost against defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and ex-parte against defendant No. 2, it was declared that Schedule-A, the plaintiff is entitled to leasehold over the suit house property described in Schedule-A and declared and the defendants are directed to vacate the suit house described in Schedule-A of the plaint and hand over its khas possession to the plaintiff within sixty days of the order. The plaintiffs were further directed to return the moveable articles described in Schedule-B of the plaint within the said period of sixty days, failing which, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover the possession of the suit house through the process of the court and also to recover the price of the household articles amounting to Rs. 2985/-. 4. Aggrieved by this, the appellants-defendants filed Title Appeal No. 09 of 1989 and by judgment dated 13.12.1991, the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal and has affirmed the judgment of the learned trial court. Against the judgment of the learned appellate court, the present second appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the substituted respondent No. 1(i) and 1(iii) have left for their heavenly abode. 6. In view of his such submission, so far against respondent Nos. 1(i) and 1(iii) are concerned, this second appeal is already abated, as against them, as no substitution petition has been filed on behalf of the appellants till date. 7. The suit was instituted by the appellants defendants for declaration of title and restoration of possession of Schedule-A and B properties prescribed in the plaint. 8. 1(i) and 1(iii) are concerned, this second appeal is already abated, as against them, as no substitution petition has been filed on behalf of the appellants till date. 7. The suit was instituted by the appellants defendants for declaration of title and restoration of possession of Schedule-A and B properties prescribed in the plaint. 8. The plaintiff's case is that he is the lessee under Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. with respect to a piece of land measuring 30' x 30' with a mud built house country tiled roof situated at Sonari, at Holding no. 714 P.S. Sonari. Plaintiff now a retired employee of TISCO since dead during service on 13.3.1939 was allotted the said piece of land by TISCO for residential purpose over which he constructed the house consisting of two rooms, one verandah described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint. The plaintiff after his retirement in the year 1971 visited his native village in Madhya Pradesh' periodically to look after his family so he contemplated to sell out the suit property to defendant No. 2 his co-villager and co-employee under Tisco, who offered to purchase it for Rs.2000/-and it was agreed upon that the consideration money of Rs.2000/-will be paid on plaintiff's return to his house on the date after execution and registration of the sale deed. In the evening of 18.10.75 after registration of Sale Deed the plaintiff money which was deferred by defendant No. 2 to be paid after his return from his native place as money was lying with his wife there. Due to long association of plaintiff with defendant no. 2 he had full confidence on him and could not suspect any faul play. Defendant no. 2 did not return from his village for a month giving rise to doubt in the mind of plaintiff about the fraud practiced upon him. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is a simple man who relied upon defendant no. 2 and endorsed the registration receipt in the name of scribe of the Deed and he believes that original Sale Deed has yet not been delivered to the defendant no. 2 from the Registration Office and the plaintiff did not deliver the possession of the house to defendant no. 2 and himself remained in possession of the suit house waiting return of defendant no. 2 from his house. 2 from the Registration Office and the plaintiff did not deliver the possession of the house to defendant no. 2 and himself remained in possession of the suit house waiting return of defendant no. 2 from his house. In the second week of "May 1976 plaintiff -1 got an information that one of his children was seriously ill in his native village in Madhya Pradesh. So he went there after closing the suit house putting the sale under lock and key and the domestic articles described in Schedule-B of the plaint was kept in the suit house. In course of the plaintiff's absence defendant nos. 1 3 and 4 forcibly entered into the suit house after breaking the lock on 4.6.76 and occupied it and are still in wrongful possession of the same. After receiving information about this incident from his brother the plaintiff returned to Jamshedpur on 27.6.76 and while trying to enter the suit house, he was pushed by defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4, who gave him ultimatum to do away with his life. They also did not give him his moveable articles described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint. Therefore, having no alternative the plaintiff lodged information at Sonari P.S. A proceeding under sections 107 and 144 Cr.P.C. was started. Thereafter as the said proceedings did not bear any fruit plaintiff filed a complaint petition under the penal sections on 8.12.76 against defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4, bearing JC/1 case no. 159 of 1976 wherein the accused persons were however acquitted by Judgment dated 21.8.79. The plaintiff also executed a registered Deed of Cancellation of the said Sale Deed, it is pleaded that defendant no. 2 did not acquire any right, title and interest in the suit house by virtue of the said Sale Deed as the same was settled with fraud and without consideration, hence inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The other defendants has also no right, title and interest in the suit house as they are mere trespasser. It is stated that in course of hearing of the said Criminal case defendant filed a forged Deed of Agreement to sell dated 6.11.75 said to have been executed by defendant No. 2 for Sale of the suit property after consideration of Rs.5,000/-out of which Rs.4000/-being paid in advance by defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 2. In fact defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 2. In fact defendant no. 2 never executed any such Deed of Agreement for Sale. The same is forged one. Defendant no. 1 was never put in possession over the suit premises by defendant no. 2., who had never acquired any right, title or interest over the same. Hence necessity of the suit for declaration of title of plaintiff over Schedule 'A' and 'B' and restoration of possession of the same. The cause of action for the suit arose against defendants on and from 4.6.76 when defendant nos. 1,3 and 4 forcibly trespassed into the suit house and also from 18. 10. 75 the date of Execution and registration of said Sale Deed by plaintiff in favour of defendant no. 2 within the jurisdiction of this court .It is also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has not disposed of any property fraudulently nor has entered into any agreement with respect to this subject matter of the proposed suit under which any other person had obtained interest in such subject matter. Plaintiff has prayed for a decree with cost against the defendants declaring plaintiff's title to the Lease -hold rights on the suit house described in the schedule-A of the plaint, the decree for restoration of khas possession of Schedule 'A property through court after evicting defendant at their cost and also to return the moveable articles as detailed in Schedule 'b' within time fixed by the court failing which a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.2985/-i.e. value of those articles to be passed against the defendants along with other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff is found entitled has also been prayed to be passed. 9. Defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4 have appeared and contested the suit by filing W.S. But defendant no. 2 neither appeared in the suit nor contested it. Two sets of W.S. has been filed. Ist on behalf of defendant no. 4 Lachman Maharaj @ Nachako and second on behalf of defendant nos. 1 and 3 Sheo Narain Singh and Jitendra Singh respectively. In the W.S. filed on behalf of Nachako, it was inter alia pleaded that suit is not maintainable as it is hopelessly barred by limitation, estoppel, waiver an acquiescence. The suit is also bad for misjoinder of parties. This defendant has got absolutely no concern with the suit property. 1 and 3 Sheo Narain Singh and Jitendra Singh respectively. In the W.S. filed on behalf of Nachako, it was inter alia pleaded that suit is not maintainable as it is hopelessly barred by limitation, estoppel, waiver an acquiescence. The suit is also bad for misjoinder of parties. This defendant has got absolutely no concern with the suit property. It was pleaded that the plaintiff ceased to have any right, title interest or possession in respect of suit house since 10.8.75 on account of transfer of his right in favour of defendant no. 2 Jagnu by way of registered Deed of sale for consideration of R. 2,000/-. It was pleaded that payment of consideration was not at all agreed to be paid after execution of the said Sale Deed. On the contrary the plaintiff after receiving the entire amount of consideration of Rs.2000/-executed the said sale Deed in favour of defendant no. 2 Jagnu Ram. The defendant No. 2 in good faith had paid the entire amount of consideration to the plaintiff. The registration receipt were duly endorsed in favour of defendant no. 2 who took delivery of the original Sale Deed from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jamshedpur and after execution of sale Deed defendant no. 2 was put in possession of the suit house on the date of execution of Sale Deed itself. It is denied that plaintiff after closing the suit house went to his native village leaving his domestic articles inside the house. The plaintiff gave false information before the Police against defendant. Nos. 1, 3 and 4 resulting into initiation of 107 and 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding which ended in favour of defendants. Thereafter plaintiff brought a false criminal case in the court of S.D.J.M. Jamshedpur against defendant nos. 1,3 and 4 resulting into acquittal of the accused persons by the Trial Court Shri R.G. Sharma, J.M. Jamshedpur by his Judgement dated 21.8.1979. It is pleaded that the answering defendants had no knowledge about the cancellation of the Sale Deed in question by the plaintiff and this unilateral act of cancellation by the plaintiff cannot nullify the effect of registration of said Sale Deed. It is pleaded that defendant no. 1 was a bona fide purchaser of the suit house from defendant no. It is pleaded that the answering defendants had no knowledge about the cancellation of the Sale Deed in question by the plaintiff and this unilateral act of cancellation by the plaintiff cannot nullify the effect of registration of said Sale Deed. It is pleaded that defendant no. 1 was a bona fide purchaser of the suit house from defendant no. 2 and came in possession over the suit house in part performance of contract of Sale through agreement for sale dated 6.11.75 already executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 after receiving Rs.4000/-against total consideration of Rs.5000/-. 10. This second appeal was admitted by order dated 20.04.1992 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether in view of the statements made in paragraph-6 of the written statement as also the recitals made in the impugned deed of sale, the intention of the parties was that the title in respect of the properties in question shall pass only on payment of consideration therefor?” 11. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants took the court to the judgments of the learned trial court as well as the appellate court and submits that there is perversity in the judgment of the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court. He submits that the consideration amount has already been paid, which has been wrongly considered by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court. He further submits that the respondent-plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit, even after immediate registering the sale deed executed by the plaintiff on 18.10.1975 [Exhibit-A]. He further submits that the learned courts committed grave error of law holding that the suit instituted by the plaintiff after expiry of the period of three years shall not hit by Article 59 of the Limitation Act and also not barred by limitation. He further submits that in the sale deed dated 18.10.1975, it is clear recital that the vendor has received a consideration money of Rs. 2000/-and also acknowledged the receipt of the said consideration, in spite of that, the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has held that the sale deed is void. He further submits that in the sale deed dated 18.10.1975, it is clear recital that the vendor has received a consideration money of Rs. 2000/-and also acknowledged the receipt of the said consideration, in spite of that, the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has held that the sale deed is void. He further submits that the learned courts have not considered the intention to transfer of the property in favour of defendant No. 2 for the values paid or honestly to be paid and they have committed grave error in law in holding that the sale deed was void. To buttress his arguments he refers to Sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 12. On the aforesaid grounds, he submits that in view of the well settled proposition of law, the law point framed by this court is required to be answered in favour of the appellants, as there is perversity in the judgments of the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court. 13. Per contra, Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court have dealt with all the documents as well as oral evidences and thereafter come to the conclusion. In that view of the matter, the law point, framed by this court is required to be answered in favour of the respondents. He also took the court to certain paragraphs of the judgments and submits that the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has rightly passed the judgments and there is no requirement of any interference by this court. He accordingly, submits that this appeal if fit to be dismissed. 14. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the court is required to answer the law points framed by this court, which was framed at the time of admission of this second appeal, which is quoted hereinabove. He accordingly, submits that this appeal if fit to be dismissed. 14. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the court is required to answer the law points framed by this court, which was framed at the time of admission of this second appeal, which is quoted hereinabove. The learned trial court has framed issue No. (i) with regard to plaintiff got subsisting right over the suit house even after executing a registered sale deed with respect to the suit house in favour of defendant No. 2 or not and the issue No. (ii) is with regard to registered deed of sale dated 18.10.1975 a valid document or not. While deciding issue Nos. (i) and (ii), the trial court has considered the evidence of P.W.-1 Ram Prasad, resident of Sonari Mohalla and he fully supported the case of the respondent/plaintiff and he has stated that he has been told by the plaintiff regarding execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 2 Jugnu, who had assured the payment of consideration on return to his house which he did not pay and said that he will pay the money on return from the native village. But neither the defendant returned from his house nor pay the money and hence the suit house remained as usual in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff after putting in the house went to his native place to see his ailing child and in his absence the defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 forcefully entered in the suit house. He has also stated that the defendants not even returned his house hold articles kept in the suit house, valued about Rs. 3,000/-to Rs. 4,000/-. In course of his lengthy cross-examination, nothing has been stated by him in favour of the appellants. D.W.-2, who has also supported the case and he has also stated that he sold the suit house to the defendant No. 2 for Rs. 2,000/-and handed over the receipt to the scribe of the sale deed. But the purchaser did not pay him even a single money, out of the consideration money and he was deferred the payment of consideration money. 2,000/-and handed over the receipt to the scribe of the sale deed. But the purchaser did not pay him even a single money, out of the consideration money and he was deferred the payment of consideration money. He has specifically asserted that he has never given possession of suit house to defendant No. 2 even after execution of the sale deed and when he went to see him, he was informed by D.W.-1 through a letter that defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have forcefully entered into the suit house by breaking open the lock and for that a criminal case is also lodged and he has also moved for cancellation of sale deed, which is marked Exhibit-1 in the suit. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he did not know the scribe who wrote the sale deed, nor the scribe had read over the sale deed to him and he put his signature on the sale deed without being aware of its contents. The defendant has stated in his pleading in the written statement that the consideration amount was paid well in advance in good faith to the plaintiff before the execution of the sale deed. It has been asserted by defendant No. 2 in paras-5 and 6 that the money was paid and the statement of these two D.Ws. and the written statements are contrary on that point. Defendant No. 1 has not been able to speak in his examination-in-chief when he has come in possession of the suit property either in the year 1975 or in the year 1976, wherein the agreement for sale [Exhibit-B] shows that the same was executed on 06.11.1975 only eighteen days after the execution of the sale deed in question. He has also admitted that the name of purchaser, defendant No. 2 was not mutated apparently in the office of TISCO. Exhibit-B speaks that against the total consideration of Rs. 5,000/-, the defendant No. 1 paid Rs. 4,000/-to defendant No. 2, but in course of his cross-examination in para-5, he clearly speaks that he had paid only Rs. 2,000/-and now no regular sale deed has been executed in his favour so his assertion of payment of Rs. 2,000/-in the court and Rs. 4,000/-as per document was inconsistent. All these have been considered by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court. Exhibit-B speaks that he has paid Rs. 2,000/-and now no regular sale deed has been executed in his favour so his assertion of payment of Rs. 2,000/-in the court and Rs. 4,000/-as per document was inconsistent. All these have been considered by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court. Exhibit-B speaks that he has paid Rs. 4,000/-and Rs. 1,000/-is still due to be paid by the defendants. In para-6 of the cross-examination, defendant No. 2 has admitted that he is unaware about the where-about of his executant defendant No. 2 nor he has made any effort to take regular sale deed from him since the date of alleged agreement. The defendant No. 2 in para-6 of the cross-examination stated that just after securing the sale deed only after the expiry of 18 days, executed the alleged agreement to sell intentionally for the purpose of illegal gain and he has gone underground without paying any single money. The trial court has held that the defendant No. 2 is only competent to say about the payment of consideration money, but even after appearance, he has not contested the case and he has not stated anything, by way of appearing as a witness. 15. Considering all these documents and the oral witnesses, it is crystal clear that para-6 of the written statement, the recital was made of sale, however, the same is required to be transferred only once the consideration amount is paid. It is well settled that for registration of the sale deed prima facie proof of intention to transfer the property is required, however, it is not the proof of operative transfer if payment of consideration price is a condition precedent for passing of the property. 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 upon the intention of the parties. Such intention may 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 limitations placed by Section 92 of the Evidence Act. Such intention may 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 limitations placed by Section 92 of the Evidence Act. Reference may be made to the case of Kaliaperumal vs. Rajagopal, (2009) 4 SCC 193 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-19, held as follows: “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 to 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.” 16. It is well settled that Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable, where there is a contract contrary to rights and liabilities to buyer and seller as provided for in Section 55 of the said Act. Reference may be made to the case of A.K. Lakshmipathy vs. Rai Saheb Pannalal H. Lahoti Charitable Trust, (2010) 1 SCC 287, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paras-18 and 19, held as follows: “18. Section 55 of the TP Act deals with rights and liabilities of buyer and seller. Clause (b) of Section 55(1) clearly says that it would be open to the buyer to ask the seller to produce for examination all documents of title relating to the property which are in the possession of the seller or buyer. A plain reading of this provision would amply show that documents of title relating to the property in respect of which agreement for sale was entered into must be in the possession or power of the seller which should be produced to the buyer for examination. So far as the present case is concerned, the condition regarding the clearance or exemption from the Endowment Department is not a document of title relating to the property which would benefit the buyer for examination for the purpose of completing the agreement for sale. 19. So far as the present case is concerned, the condition regarding the clearance or exemption from the Endowment Department is not a document of title relating to the property which would benefit the buyer for examination for the purpose of completing the agreement for sale. 19. Clause (c) of Section 55(1) of the TP Act also equally cannot be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. That apart, it is evident from a plain reading of Section 55 that this section becomes applicable only in the absence of the contract to the contrary. In this case, there is admittedly a contract for sale which clearly lays down the terms and conditions to govern the sale transaction.” 17. Thus, the arguments, advanced by learned counsel appearing for the appellants with regard to Sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act is negated, as the sale deed is contrary to Section 54 of the said Act. 18. On the point of limitation, the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has rightly held that the suit was not filed for cancellation of the sale deed in question and that’s why Article-59 of the Limitation Act is not attracted and considering that the sale deed itself was found to be void by the learned courts, the argument of Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants with regard to Specific Relief Act is not attracted and not helping the appellants. 19. Both the fact finding courts are consistent on the point on sale deed, in that view of the matter, the law point, framed by this court is answered against the appellants. There were concurrent findings of the learned trial court as well as first learned appellate court and the said findings of the of both the courts are upon appreciation of the entire evidence available on record and therefore unless concurrent findings recorded by the courts were found to be perverse, same was not required to be interfered by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the CPC. 20. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, this appeal is dismissed. 21. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the concerned court forthwith.