JUDGMENT : (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 6.7.2024 passed by learned District Judge-III, Gumla, with regard to Civil Appeal No.22 of 2018 whereby the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-II, Gumla in Title Suit No.38 of 2009 by judgment dated 31.08.2018 and decree dated 4.9.2018. 3. The plaintiff-appellant has instituted the Title Suit No.38 of 2009 for declaration of right, title and possession over the suit land and declaration of sale deed No.2319 of 2006 dated 10.10.2006 instituted by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant be declared void ab initio and of no consequence as described in schedule of the plaint. 4. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is that the lands under Khata no. 183, plot no. 2382, Area 0.54 acres including some other lands of village and PS Sisai, District Gumla has been recorded in the R.S record of right in the names of Lakku Teli, Mali Teli and Gunga Teli sons of late Gansu Teli of the village and P.S Sisai. Mali Teli and Gunga Teli died issue less and Mali Teli died leaving behind his widow Somari Sahun. Somari Sahun W/o Mali Teli had sold the land under khata no. 183, plot no. 2382, Area 0.35 acres out of 0.54 acres towards east in favour of Sk. Md Elahi Bux S/o Late Sk Karim Bux through registered sale deed no. 421 dated 3.3.1965 for her legal necessity after taking valid consideration. The land was shown in remarks column of R.S record of right under the possession of Mali Teli after getting the land purchased, the plaintiff came in possession, got his name mutated and he is paying the rent and cess regularly to the State without any interruption from any corner Besides this he has erected boundary wall over his purchased area, and also a house bearing six rooms. The plaintiff fell in urgent need of money and sold the land under Khata no. 183. plot no 2382. Area 0.09 acres out of 0.35 acres towards West in favour of the defendant through registered sale deed no. 2319/06 dated 10-10- 2006 for a consideration of Rs. 1.76,000/- (One lac seventy six thousand). The plaintiff fell in urgent need of money and sold the land under Khata no. 183. plot no 2382. Area 0.09 acres out of 0.35 acres towards West in favour of the defendant through registered sale deed no. 2319/06 dated 10-10- 2006 for a consideration of Rs. 1.76,000/- (One lac seventy six thousand). The defendant assured him that all the consideration amount will be paid as earlier as possible and the plaintiff accepted the payment in deed, but the defendant on demand by the plaintiff, always used to post-pone the matter for some pretext or the other and as yet he did not pay a single paisa to the plaintiff Now three years is going to be elapsed but on repeated request the defendant did not pay the consideration amount to the plaintiff. Due to non payment of sale consideration money the plaintiff has not delivered possession to the defendant and the plaintiff is still in possession over the suit land. Due to non payment of consideration money the title did not pass to the defendant. The plaintiff demanded the consideration money lastly 25-09-2009, but the defendant refuse to pay the consideration amount, Hence the plaintiff is compelled to file this suit. 5. The case of the defendant is that upon notice, the defendant appeared in title suit before the trial Court and has filed his written Statement contesting the claim and prayer made on behalf of the Plaintiff. It has been contended that this suit as framed in its present form is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed. There is no cause of action for the suit and those reveal in paragraph 9 or elsewhere in the plaint are all concocted and fabricated for the purpose of the present suit. The facts are otherwise different than those stated in the plaint. The real facts are that the plaintiff on 10.10.2006 executed a sale deed no 3739 in favour the defendant, before execution of the sale deed plaintiff receiving full consideration money of the land Rs. 1,76,000/- (Rupees one lac seventy six thousand) and expended this consideration money in his use because at that time he was facing hardship and urgently required money hence full consideration money was paid to the plaintiff before execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendant. 1,76,000/- (Rupees one lac seventy six thousand) and expended this consideration money in his use because at that time he was facing hardship and urgently required money hence full consideration money was paid to the plaintiff before execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff before execution of the sale deed had shown the land to the defendant and had also shown the sale deed by which he had acquired the land and believing upon the plaintiff the defendant agreed to purchase the land of sale deed and after that full consideration amount was paid to the plaintiff. After execution of sale deed by the plaintiff, defendant started construction of building on the land shown by the plaintiff to the defendant and when up to Lintel Level bricks work was done, one Ludhuwa Sanu inheritor of the recorded tenant of Khata no. 183 along with some other persons came there and asked the defendant to stop the work because plot no 2383 is his own land on which the defendant was constructing building and this plot of land was never sold to SK. Md Elahi Bux and also Record of right of khata no. 183 in which plot no 2382 is not there which was sold to this defendant by the plaintiff, after the said occurrence the defendant on his own began to inquire about the details of the land and found that there is no plot no. 2382 in Khata no. 183 The plot no. 2382 is situated in khata no. 133, which is recorded in the joint names of Gandur Oraon son of Budhu Oraon and Dukha Oraon son of Jata Oraon of the village. The defendant went to the plaintiff and asked to return the consideration money which was paid to him by the defendant stating all the fact which has came in the knowledge of the defendant from Ludhuwa Sahu and also going through R.S Khata no 133 of the village but the plaintiff told the defendant that he shall also inquire in the matter himself and then he shall pay back consideration money to the defendant. but after repeated requests made to the plaintiff by the defendant, plaintiff did not return back the amount. but after repeated requests made to the plaintiff by the defendant, plaintiff did not return back the amount. The defendant informed several persons of the village, but the villagers told the defendant that plaintiff is active member of congress any and if any case is instituted against him, plaintiff shall drag the defendant in several false cases, hence the defendant could not institute any case against the plaintiff for his own acts. It is further pleaded that the defendant had spent a huge amount in constructing building up to Lintel level as such he approached Ludhuwa Sahu, and asked to sale the land on which building was constructed up to Lintel level being plot no. 2383 under khata no 183 and Ludhuwa Sahu agreed to sale the land and after receiving full consideration money from the defendant, Ludhuwa Sahu executed sale deed no 1817/1786 dated 14-7-2009 after knowing the fact of execution of sale deed by Ludhuwa Sahu in favour of the defendant, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit on false and concocted statement on 5.10.2009 The defendant has denied each and every statement of the plaint except which has been specifically admitted. The defendant has denied that plot no 2382 has been recorded under khata no 183. It has been contended that the plaintiff has got sale deed executed by Soman Sahu for plot no 2382 not for plot no 2383 The Plot no 2383 is not under khata no. 183 but this plot is of khata no 133 which is Adivasi khata and as such plaintiff has got no right, title or possession over plot no. 2383. The land of plot no. 2382 may have been mutated in favour of the plaintiff, but the mutation order is itself wrong because the Raiyat of Khata no 133 have never sold the land to the plaintiff and this deed has been executed by the plaintiff playing fraud upon the defendant after receiving full consideration money in presence of witnesses before the execution of sale deed. The plaintiff is not in possession over on a single inch of plot no. 2383 and prayer has been made to dismiss the suit with compensatory costs. 6. Mr. The plaintiff is not in possession over on a single inch of plot no. 2383 and prayer has been made to dismiss the suit with compensatory costs. 6. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned courts have failed to appreciate that the sale consideration of the suit land was not paid to the plaintiff which was the root cause to file the suit. He submits that the law points are involved to that effect and in view of that, this second appeal may kindly be admitted on that law point(s). 7. The learned trial court has framed the five issues to decide the suit. 8. Issue no.4 was with regard to sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant is void ab initio or not? 9. Issue no.3 is with regard to that the plaintiff has got the right, title and interest over the suit property or not? 10. Issue nos.3 and 4 have been taken together by the learned trial court. 11. The learned trial court has appreciated the evidences of the P.Ws as well as the documentary evidences and then the learned court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff Shekh Md. Elahi Bux has executed the sale deed no.2319 of 2006 dated 10.10.2006 in favour of Md. Nesar Ahmed, exhibited Exhibit-B by the defendant. It has been accepted by the plaintiff that he has executed the sale deed dated 10.10.2006 and has got it registered. It has also been accepted by the plaintiff that the said sale deed is used by the defendant the document for title and further it was not the case of the plaintiff that he was not aware of the legal effect of the said sale deed. The sale deed was registered one and pursuant to that, the right, title and interest has been transferred to the purchaser. 12. The learned court relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh v. Birbal reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353 has found that there is presumption that registered document is validly executed which is valid in law and onus to prove would be on a person to made evidence to remove presumption and the plaintiffs have failed to do so. The court has also found that the declaration of the sale deed was sought to be null and void. However, no attempt was taken to exhibit the sale deed and on the other hand, the defendants have exhibited the sale deed. The plaintiff on oral evidence have contested that the consideration was not paid. However, no attempt was made to prove that. On the other hand, the defendants have led oral and documentary evidence placed on record that sale deed was executed only on payment of consideration amount of Rs.1,76,000/-, that has also been recorded in the sale deed and the consideration amount was also disclosed and thereafter the execution was made. Considering this the learned trial court has been pleased to dismiss the suit. 13. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.8.2018, the said judgment was challenged by the appellants herein in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2018 which was decided by the judgment dated 6.7.2024 by the learned appellate court and has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and affirmed the order of the learned trial court. The learned appellate court in paragraph no.17 has further made points to decide the appeal. The learned appellate court has also considered that PW1 is son of plaintiff and reiterated the contents of the plaint during his evidence. The defendant witnesses contesting the claim by plaint have deposed that the consideration amount was paid at the time of execution of sale deed. PW2 Mangar Mahli has deposed that the plaintiff Shekh Md. Elahi Bux has sold land to Md. Nesar Ahmed on payment of consideration of Rs.1,76,000/- by registered sale deed no.3739 dated 10.10.2006. He has also deposed that plaintiff has shown previous sale deed and the land of the defendant prior to its registration and the learned appellate court has further dealt with the other witnesses and the documents and has affirmed the order. There is concurrent finding of the two learned courts and no law point has been made out to admit the second appeal. 14. There is no perversity in the order of both the learned courts and perversity has also not been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. The second appeal can be admitted only on the substantial law point and the Court finds that the facts and the depositions as well as the documents have rightly been considered by both the learned courts. 15. The second appeal can be admitted only on the substantial law point and the Court finds that the facts and the depositions as well as the documents have rightly been considered by both the learned courts. 15. No case of interference is made out. 16. Accordingly, Second Appeal No.128 of 2024 is dismissed.