JUDGMENT :

1. This is plaintiff's first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 28th June, 2007 passed by 9th Additional District Judge (FTC), Raipur in Civil Suit No. 20-A/2003, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff has instituted a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on 30.08.2001 stating inter alia that plaintiff is title and possession holder of the suit property as well as house constructed and other amenities attached with the suit property ad-measuring area 14.90 acres as described in para 2 of the plaint. The aforesaid suit property was given to him by executing a Will on dated 30.12.1979 by Shiv Prasad Sahu, S/o Mayaram Sahu and Smt. Rambati Bai, widow of Shri Ram Sahu, resident of village Dhulna, Police Station Rajim, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur. When the said Will was executed, the plaintiff was minor i.e. aged about 4 years. Shiv Prasad Sahu and Smt. Rambati Bai had expired in the years 1982 and 1980, respectively and after the death of executant of the Will 30.12.1979, the same has been made effective, at that time also, the plaintiff was minor. At that time, his father Chandrika Prasad Sahu was taking care of his property which he obtained through Will dated 30.12.1979. Original Defendant No. 2, by taking advantage of the age of the plaintiff, got their name mutated in the revenue records and sold the land bearing Khasra No. 25/1, area 0.352 hectare to defendant No. 1 vide registered sale deed dated 3.9.1998, which is without jurisdiction and authority of law. The defendant No. 2 has no right to sell the property, owned by the plaintiff and merely on the basis of recording of name in the revenue records, she does not confer any right over the suit property, therefore, the sale-deed executed on 04.09.1998 is non-est and does not confer any right over the suit property. The plaintiff is still in possession of the suit property, which has been sold by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1.

3. It has been further contended that as soon as the plaintiff came to know about the sell of the suit property, he raised objection in the mutation proceeding, which was initiated in the office of Nayab Tahshildar, Nawapara, Rajim and on his objection, proceeding initiated before Nayab Tahshildar, Raim was closed on 29.07.1999, as such, the name of defendant No. 1 could not be recorded in the revenue records, till today

4. The suit property is agricultural land and the plaintiff is still doing agricultural work on the suit property and on the basis of registered sale deed dated 3.9.1998 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1, the defendant No. 1 has made an attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and defendant No. 1 has tried to remove the plaintiff from the suit land on the basis of registered sale deed executed between defendant No. 2 & defendant No. 1, which necessitated him to file a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction before the trial Court.

5. The defendant No. 1 has filed a written statement specifically denying the fact that plaintiff is title holder and possession holder of the suit property. It is also denying that the plaintiff's father was managing the suit property, when the plaintiff was minor. It has also been averred that the defendant No. 1 has purchased the suit property from defendant No. 2 through registered sale-deed dated 3.9.1998, therefore, it cannot be said that the aforesaid sale is not in accordance with law, thus, the sale has been done in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference. It is specifically denied that the plaintiff was doing agricultural operation on the suit land. The defendant No. 1 has constructed bounda