ORDER :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Heard.

2. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 68A/99 by the Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh, whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff Janak Ram, the minor, by holding that the sale deed dated 09.02.1998 executed by his grandfather in favour of Hemsagar the defendant No. 1 was not binding on the plaintiff. Further it was decreed that the plaintiff was entitled for the possession over the suit land and is the owner of the suit land.

3. The plaintiff Janak Ram, who was 17 years old at the time of filing of the suit, filed the suit through his next friend/guardian father namely Devcharan Sahu against his grandfather Sakram and the purchaser of the land namely Hemsagar. During the pendency of the suit the Sakram, who was the grandfather of Janak Ram died as his name was deleted from plaint. The plaintiff contended that the suit was filed for declaration, permanent injunction and subsequently the prayer for possession was added. It was stated that at village Nandigaon a land bearing Khasra No. 114/2, admeasuring 0.452 hectares and Khasra No. 114/3, admeasuring 0.373 hectares, which was described as suit land was purchased by Sakram, the grandfather of the plaintiff Janakram. It was stated that the grandfather subsequently on 09.02.1998 sold the subject land to Hemsagar and thereafter Hemsagar got his name mutated in the revenue records.

4. The perusal of the record would show that initially a suit was filed by the plaintiff before the Additional Judge Class-I, Sarangarh to the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Raigarh for declaration and permanent injunction wherein the valuation of the suit was objected, subsequently the suit was filed with a valuation of Rs.72000/-, which was scribed in the sale deed. It was stated that the suit land bearing Khasra No. 114/2, admeasuring 0.452 hectares and Khasra No. 114/3, admeasuring 0.373 hectares was purchased in the name of the plaintiff Janak Ram while he was minor and in order to safeguard the interest of the minor, the name of the grandfather Sakram was also shown in the sale deed. It was stated that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. The date of birth of the minor was stated to be 30.05.1981 and on the date of filing of the suit he was still a minor of 17 years as such the suit was filed by the natural guardian and next friend of the minor. The-pleading also contains the fact that the defendant No. 1 Hemsagar was brother-in-law to Sakram, the grandfather of the plaintiff. It was stated that Sakram, the grandfather without the legal necessity and without adequate sale consideration, sold the land to Hemsagar and at the time of the execution of the sale Sakram due to his old age, lost his senses to understand the facts and taking advantage of that, the sale deed was got executed. It was stated that according to the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956') no permission was obtained from the Court before execution of the sale deed and during the pendency of the suit in the year 1991 Sakram died and subsequent thereto on the basis of the sale deed, in the revenue records, the name of the defendant was mutated. It was stated that the said sale deed is voidable and is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff further pleaded that because of the mutation made, the defendant started interfering in the possession of the plaintiff, therefore, necessity of the filing of the suit arose. The plaint would reveal that during the pendency of the suit, a prayer was added that if the court finds that the plaintiff is not in possession, then in such case, the possession of the suit property may be given to the plaintiff.

5. The defendant No. 2, the State, remained ex-parte. Deceased Sakram, while he was alive also did not file any written-statement. The purchaser defendant No. 1 Hemsagar filed his written-statement and denied that the plaintiff was in possessi