JUDGMENT : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Memorandum of Appeal is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) aggrieved by the judgment and decree in OS.No.107 of 2015, dated 08.10.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge at Karimnagar. 2.1. Appellant No.1 is the sole plaintiff and the respondent is the sole defendant. 2.2. During pendency of the Appeal, appellant No.1 died, his LR is brought on record as appellant No.2. 3.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous in law and against the facts of the case, the Court below without considering the facts, documents and legal position passed the impugned judgment. Appellant No.1-plaintiff filed suit for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document No.560 of 2015 dated 20.01.2015, as on the date of filing of the suit he was in possession of the suit schedule property and the Court below did not look into the same. As per the recitals of the sale deed (Ex.A4) the value of the property shown is Rs.17,27,000/- but the respondent-defendant has taken a plea that he has purchased the schedule property for Rs.36 Lakhs and he has not placed any material on record to substantiate his contention. 3.2. The learned trial Court failed to see that as per the evidence brought on record that the plaint schedule property was under mortgage with Deccan Grameena Bank as on the date of alleged registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015, which established that the registered sale deed obtained by the respondent-defendant from the appellant No.1-plaintiff is by playing fraud upon him. The learned trial Court erroneously gave a finding that the appellant No.1-plaintiff has not examined his family members who too signed on the original sale deed (Ex.A4). The judgment and decree passed by the Court below is devoid of merits on Law and facts. Counsel to substantiate his contention, has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Others , 2021 LawSuit(SC) 752 , (2) Shanti Devi (since deceased) through LRs Goran Vs. Jagan Devi and Others , 2025 LawSuit(SC) 1252 , (3) A.Jeevan Reddy Vs. State of Telangana, Criminal Petition Nos.5708 and 5709 of 2024, dated 19.02.2025 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and prayed to allow the Appeal. 4. Jagan Devi and Others , 2025 LawSuit(SC) 1252 , (3) A.Jeevan Reddy Vs. State of Telangana, Criminal Petition Nos.5708 and 5709 of 2024, dated 19.02.2025 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and prayed to allow the Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and the appellant No.1-plaintiff has received the total sale consideration under Ex.A4 and executed registered sale deed in his favour and furthermore, the sale deed (Ex.A4) is attested by the family members. No interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 5. Learned counsel on record have filed their written submissions. 6. Now the points for consideration are : (1) Whether the appellant No.1-plaintiff has established through evidence that the registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015 vide document No.560 of 2015 is devoid of consideration? If so, (2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in OS.No.107 of 2015 dated 08.10.2018 suffers from any perversity or illegality and does it requires interference of this Court? 7.1. Appellant No.1-plaintiff stated in the plaint that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property having purchased the same from Vemulawada Shankaraiah (open plot) and thereafter he obtained permission, got constructed a house. Appellant No.1- plaintiff was in need of money and the respondent-defendant induced him by promising to pay Rs.2 Lakhs but on condition of executing registered agreement of sale for the suit schedule property. The appellant No.1-plaintiff believed the version of the respondent-defendant and executed document before the Sub-Registrar, he was under an impression that the said document is an agreement of sale. While so on 10.06.2015, the respondent- defendant threatened him to vacate the suit schedule property on the ground that he obtained the registered sale deed from him. Appellant No.1-plaintiff was shocked and approached the police on 11.06.2015 but the police have advised him to approach the Civil Court and thereafter he obtained the certified copy of the sale deed (Ex.A4) and EC and noticed that the respondent-defendant has played fraud on him. 7.2. Suit schedule property is land bearing Sy.No.738 to an extent of 185.83 Square yards consisting with house bearing No. 8-5-571 having ground floor and first floor in Plot No.2 situated at Kotirampur locality of Karimnagar Town with specific boundaries. 8. 7.2. Suit schedule property is land bearing Sy.No.738 to an extent of 185.83 Square yards consisting with house bearing No. 8-5-571 having ground floor and first floor in Plot No.2 situated at Kotirampur locality of Karimnagar Town with specific boundaries. 8. Respondent-defendant stated in the written statement that the appellant No.1-plaintiff and his son have incurred debts thereby they wanted to sell the suit schedule property and approached him through Sri. Pudari Srinivas of Kattarampur area and thereafter he agreed to purchase the same and paid the entire sale consideration in presence of the above said person and the appellant No.1-plaintiff executed registered sale deed in his favour on 20.01.2015, on the said date possession was delivered to him. Appellant No.1-plaintiff has promised the respondent-defendant that he will vacate the suit schedule property in a month and also pleaded that the property is mortgaged with Deccan Grameena Bank by the date of execution of the sale deed. Appellant No.1- plaintiff promised to clear the mortgage loan and accordingly, on the next date of the registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015 he discharged the loan due to the Bank and the Bank in turn has executed registered Re-conveyance Deed on 27.01.2015. Thereafter, the appellant-plaintiff has handed over the original documents to him. Appellant No.1-plaintiff failed to vacate the suit schedule property as promised by him and he is taking steps to evict them. Respondent-defendant has mutated his name in the Municipal Records on 30.04.2015. 9. The learned trial Court basing on the pleadings of the parties has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the defendant advanced an amount of Rs.2.00 Lakhs to plaintiff and as a security for payment of the said amount asked the plaintiff to execute an agreement of sale in respect of plaint schedule property and instead obtained a registered sale deed by playing fraud on plaintiff? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ask for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document No.560 of 2015, dated 20.01.2015 on the ground that it was obtained by defendant by playing fraud on plaintiff? 10. Appellant No.1-plaintiff is examined as PW.1, got examined. PW.2-Gorre Laxman, PW.3-Katla Satheesh and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Respondent-defendant is examined as DW.1 and examined DW.2-Pudari Srinivas, DW.3-Pallerla Thirupathi and got marked Exs.B1 to B5. 11. 10. Appellant No.1-plaintiff is examined as PW.1, got examined. PW.2-Gorre Laxman, PW.3-Katla Satheesh and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Respondent-defendant is examined as DW.1 and examined DW.2-Pudari Srinivas, DW.3-Pallerla Thirupathi and got marked Exs.B1 to B5. 11. The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs which is impugned in the Appeal. 12.1. Ex.B1 is the original registered sale deed bearing document No.3901 of 1992 dated 20.08.1992 executed by Pendyala Madhusudan Rao in favour of Vemulawada Shankaraiah in respect of open plot No.2 and Survey No.738 in an extent of 185.83 Square yrds. Ex.B2 is the original registered sale deed bearing No.1961 of 1995 dated 22.03.1995 in respect of the schedule property covered under Ex.B1 and is executed by Vemulawada Shankaraiah in favour of Satla Komuraiah (appellant No.1-plaintiff). There is no dispute with regard to the purchase of the suit schedule property by the appellant No.1-plaintiff. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.560 of 2015 dated 20.01.2015 executed by the appellant No.1-plaintiff in favour of the respondent-defendant. Ex.B3 is the original registered sale deed of the respondent-defendant. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the original of Ex.B3, dated 20.01.2015. Ex.B4 is the original Re-conveyance Deed bearing document No.787 of 2015 dated 27.01.2015. Ex.B5 is the proceedings of transfer of title of property in respect of house bearing door No.8-5-571 in favour of respondent-defendant vide dated 30.04.2015. 12.2. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant No.1- plaintiff is the owner of the open plot covered by Exs.B1 and B2 and thereafter he constructed the house which is assigned as house bearing No.8-5-571 having ground floor and first floor. Ex.A2 is the electricity receipt bills (6) in number dated 19.05.2015 and 19.06.2015 and Ex.A3 is the Municipal Tax receipts dated 25.06.2015 that is after the execution of Ex.A4 sale deed on 20.01.2015. 13. The evidence of the Appellant No.1-plaintiff is the same with that of the plaint averments. Ex.A2 is the electricity receipt bills (6) in number dated 19.05.2015 and 19.06.2015 and Ex.A3 is the Municipal Tax receipts dated 25.06.2015 that is after the execution of Ex.A4 sale deed on 20.01.2015. 13. The evidence of the Appellant No.1-plaintiff is the same with that of the plaint averments. In his cross-examination, he stated that he never intended to enter into agreement with the defendant and the respondent-defendant never came to his house nor requested him to lend money and he approached Sri Mohan Reddy, brother of the respondent-defendant, requested him for a loan of Rs.2 Lakhs, who in turn asked him to mortgage his house property to lend money and accordingly the said Mohan Reddy obtained his signatures on some papers and later converted the same into the sale deed which is now questioned by him. He went to the Registrar Office alone, later all his family members also visited the office and his grand-daughter by name Sandhya Rani is a Graduate, Mohan Reddy did not come to the Registrar office on 20.01.2015 and all his family members have signed in the original of Ex.A4 sale deed, their signatures, thumb impression and Irish photos were obtained inside the Registrar office. At the time of registration of Ex.A4 sale deed his house was under mortgage with Deccan Grameena Bank and hence the original documents related to the house were in the said Bank and he released the same by making payment of Rs.4,32,164/- to the Bank on 21-01-2015 and the original documents are not available with him and he also released the gold ornaments from Manapuram Gold Loan Pvt. Ltd. by making payment on 21.01.2015. He knows Pudari Srinivas who is resident of the same locality. PW.1 denied the suggestion that he has sold the suit schedule property under Ex.A4 to the respondent-defendant and also delivered possession to him. 14.1. He knows Pudari Srinivas who is resident of the same locality. PW.1 denied the suggestion that he has sold the suit schedule property under Ex.A4 to the respondent-defendant and also delivered possession to him. 14.1. PW.2 deposed that the respondent-defendant along with his cousin by name Mohan Reddy doing Finance business and during the course of arranging the money they used to take signatures on the blank papers and also used to execute documents in their favour saying that the same is for security purpose and he came to know that the appellant No.1-plaintiff obtained some loan from the respondent-defendant and his cousin Mohan Reddy, for surety sake they created a document in their favour and after paying the entire amount by the appellant No.1-plaintiff, the respondent- defendant did not return the documents and tried to occupy the property of the appellant No.1-plaintiff. Respondent-defendant and Mohan Reddy have no right over the property of the appellant No.1-plaintiff. 14.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he do not know anything about the case and on the request of the appellant No.1-plaintiff he is giving evidence. 15.1. PW.3 deposed that as the appellant No.1-plaintiff was in need of money of Rs.2 Lakhs to clear the loan amount thereby approached the respondent-defendant. Respondent-defendant insisted him to execute registered agreement of sale in his favour till the amount is realized and the document was kept with him as security and thereafter, the respondent-defendant threatened the appellant No.1-plaintiff under the influence of his cousin Mohan Reddy to vacate the schedule property. Appellant No.1-plaintiff obtained the certified copy of sale deed and EC and found that the respondent-defendant has played fraud on him by executing registered sale deed in his favour. As a matter of fact, appellant No.1-plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and the suit schedule property is more than Rs.50 Lakhs. 15.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that at the time of the appellant No.1-plaintiff, respondent-defendant has advanced Rs.2 Lakhs, the daughter-in-law, grand-children of the appellant No.1-plaintiff were also present along with him, which was made in the house of the borrower and he do not know whether any document was reduced into writing and if so, what is the nature of the said document. He denied the suggestion that the daughter- in-law of the appellant No.1-plaintiff was running Chit business and she suffered loss and thereby the entire family of the appellant No.1-plaintiff was badly in need of money due to which the appellant No.1-plaintiff has mortgaged the property. PW.3 denied the suggestion that appellant No.1-plaintiff has sold suit schedule property to the respondent-defendant under Ex.A4 after taking the entire sale consideration. 15.3. It is to be noted here that it is not the case of the appellant No.1-plaintiff that he has obtained loan jointly from Mohan Reddy and the respondent-defendant. The evidence of PW.2 is not helpful to the case of the appellant in any manner. 16.1. The evidence of the respondent-defendant is the same with that of his written statement. 16.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he has no prior acquaintance with the plaintiff prior to the date of agreement of sale which was entered into about 40 to 45 days prior to the registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015 and he agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for Rs.36 Lakhs and on the date of agreement he paid Rs.10 Lakhs to the appellant No.1-plaintiff and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration at the time of registering the sale deed, before entering the agreement of sale, he knew that the suit schedule property was under mortgage and he did not issue paper publication about his intention to purchase the suit schedule property. After 15 days of the agreement of sale, he has paid another Rs.10 Lakhs to the appellant No.1-plaintiff and all the payments are made in cash and the appellant No.1-plaintiff did not deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to him as of now (01.05.2018) and the consideration found in Ex.B3 sale deed is Rs.17,27,000/-. 17.1. DW.2-P.Srinivas deposed that he knows the appellant No.1- plaintiff and the respondent-defendant and the appellant No.1- plaintiff informed him that he wants to sell his property to discharge the debts and other family necessities and asked him to see for prospective purchasers, after few days he took the appellant No.1-plaintiff to the house of the respondent-defendant and the negotiations took place and the total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.36 Lakhs and the respondent-defendant paid Rs.10 Lakhs to the appellant No.1-plaintiff under agreement and the balance was paid in two occasions. Appellant No.1-plaintiff executed registered sale deed on 20.01.2015 in favour of the respondent-defendant, on the date of execution of sale deed, an amount of Rs.16 Lakhs is paid to the appellant No.1-plaintiff and he attested the sale deed (Exs.A4 and B3). The wife of the appellant No.1-plaintiff by name Kalavathi, his son Srinivas, son's wife Jyothi and son's daughter namely Sandhyarani and one Hari Ashok also attested the sale deed. Appellant No.1-plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.4,32,164/- towards loan On 21.01.2015 (Deccan Grameena Bank) and the Re-conveyance deed was executed on 27.01.2015 and at the request of the appellant No.1-plaintiff he went to the Registrar Office. The appellant No.1-plaintiff received the original title deeds and its link documents from the Bank and handed over the same to the respondent-defendant. 17.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was suspended from service on the complaint given by the appellant No.1-plaintiff while he was working as a Home Guard in the Police Department. The appellant No.1-plaintiff and his son along with other relatives have signed the agreement of sale which was got typed by the appellant No.1-plaintiff and he has gone through the agreement of sale. The respondent-defendant has paid Rs.10 Lakhs towards advance to the appellant No.1-plaintiff and after 10 or 15 days he again paid Rs.10 Lakhs. The balance sale consideration of Rs.16 Lakhs was paid to the appellant No.1-plaintiff by the respondent-defendant at the time of registration of sale deed (20.01.2015). He denied the suggestion that he acted as a witness to the registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015 but not at any other date. He also denied the suggestion that the respondent-defendant did not pay Rs.16 Lakhs to the appellant No.1-plaintiff on the date of registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015. 18.1. DW.3 deposed that he knows the appellant No.1-plaintiff, respondent-defendant and DW.2-Srinivas. Appellant-plaintiff has called him on 27.01.2015 stating that he mortgaged his house with Deccan Grameena Bank and sold the same to Karunakar Reddy (respondent herein-defendant) and the Bank Authorities are executing a Re-conveyance Deed and requested him to come to the Registrar Office for attesting the documents and he took the Manager of the Bank to the Registrar Office on his Bike, Ex.A4 is executed on 27.01.2015 and he attested the document. Thereafter, he accompanied the appellant No.1-plaintiff to the said Bank and he received the original title deeds and thereafter handed over the same to the respondent-defendant at his house. 18.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he came to know about the registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015 executed in favour of the respondent-defendant when he was in the Bank along with Sri komuraiah. The Bank Manager has handed over the sale deed to the appellant No.1-plaintiff. After receipt of the same, they returned the originals to the respondent-defendant. 19.1. In Kewal Krishan 1 , the Supreme Court observed that “a sale of an immovable property has to be for a price. The price may be payable in future. It may be partly paid and the remaining part can be made payable in future. The payment of price is an essential part of a sale covered by section 54 of the TP Act. If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is of no legal effect. Therefore, such a sale will be void. It will not effect the transfer of the immovable property”. 19.2. In Shanti Devi’s2, the Supreme Court observed that “in the absence of sale consideration being tendered, the sale deed would be void”. 19.3. In A.Jeevan Reddy 3 , the High Court observed that “according to RBI guidelines related to Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2002, specifically Section 269ST of Income Tax Act, any cash withdrawal exceeding Rs.2 Lakhs should be done through an Online transaction”. 20. The recitals of Ex.A4/B3 goes to show that the total sale consideration in respect of the suit schedule property is fixed at Rs.17,27,000/- and the same is received by the appellant No.1- plaintiff and delivered possession on the date of execution of sale deed dated 20.01.2015. It is apt to note that the witnesses to the above said sale deed is S.Srinivas, S/o.Komuraiah and S.Sandyarani, D/o. Srinivas. Srinivas is none other than the son of the appellant No.1-plaintiff and S.Sandhya Rani is none other than his grand-daughter. They made their thumb impressions in the Registration office. It is apt to note that the witnesses to the above said sale deed is S.Srinivas, S/o.Komuraiah and S.Sandyarani, D/o. Srinivas. Srinivas is none other than the son of the appellant No.1-plaintiff and S.Sandhya Rani is none other than his grand-daughter. They made their thumb impressions in the Registration office. The document further goes to show that S.Jyothi, S.Kalavathi, P.Srinivas (DW.2) and H.Ashok have also signed on Ex.A4/B3 as witnesses. S.Kalavathi is none other than the wife of the appellant No.1-plaintiff and Jyothi is the daughter- in-law and H.Ashok is a third party. Ex.A4/B3 is signed by the family members of the appellant No.1-plaintiff. Appellant No.1- plaintiff has not examined any of the family members to show that the respondent-defendant has played fraud on him at the time of execution of registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015 and also failed to adduce any evidence that the sale deed is void document. Appellant No.1-plaintiff’s family members are residing in the suit schedule property, the respondent-defendant has stated in his cross-examination that he is taking steps to evict them. 21. Though the appellant No.1-plaintiff has cross-examined the respondent-defendant and DW.2 about the agreements of sale and the mode of payment made by the respondent-defendant, they are not much helpful to his case. 22. I have gone through the decision cited by the appellant’s counsel, they are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply in the present Appeal. 23. The evidence adduced by the respondent-defendant coupled with DW.2 goes to show that the appellant No.1-plaintiff sold the suit schedule property to the respondent-defendant after receiving the sale consideration. Though the respondent-defendant and DW.2 were cross-examined, no incriminating material is elicited from them. DW.3 acted as witness to the Re-conveyance Deed under Ex.B4 and the original title deeds of the suit schedule property were handed over to the respondent-defendant by the appellant No.1-plaintiff after clearing the loan amount to Deccan Grameena Bank. Appellant No.1-plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination that after execution of Ex.A4/B3 he has cleared the loan in the Bank and also redeem the gold ornaments which were pledged. 24. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed the suit. Appellant No.1-plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination that after execution of Ex.A4/B3 he has cleared the loan in the Bank and also redeem the gold ornaments which were pledged. 24. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed the suit. The appellant No.1- plaintiff failed to prove his case that the respondent-defendant has played fraud on him at the time of execution of registered sale deed under Ex.A4/B3. 25. This court is of the view that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed the suit of the appellant No.1-plaintiff and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same in view of the reasons stated supra. Hence, points are answered accordingly. 26. In the result, Appeal is dismissed without costs. Interim Orders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.