S. ACHARYA, J.

( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff No. 1 in both the Courts below is the appellant in this second appeal.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1' is the father of plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that the sale deed executed by plaintiff No. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 is not binding on the plaintiffs as the same is without consideration and was brought into existence through fraudulent means by taking advantage of the young age of plaintiff No. 2. It is the plaintiffs' case that the suit property originally belonged to Bramar Sahu (P. W. 3) and it was purchased by plaintiff No. 1 nominally in the name of his son, plaintiff No. 2 on 5-10-1953 as plaintiff No. 1 was then a leper. Plaintiff No. 1 paid the consideration money for the said purchase and he remained in possession of the land as well as the sale deed executed by Bhramar since the date of purchase. It is alleged that Radhamohan patnaik, defendant No. 2 (sister's husband of defendant No. 1) persuaded plaintiff no. 2 to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant no. 1 on the pretext that he (defendant No. 2) would take plaintiff No. 2 as a partner in his opium s