The court clarified the applicability of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act and emphasized that no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent No. 1 restraining the defendants from entering into the suit land. The sole plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had filed the suit against the defendants, which was registered as T. S. No. 170 of 1980.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 is that he is the Chela of Sri radhakrishna Mahaprabhu. He is in the management of the institution. The suit property was purchased by him. Since the defendants created trouble, he filed the suit for permanent injunction. Defendants 2 to 9 (respondents 2 to 9 herein) though did not contest the suit, supported the case of the defendant No. 1 by filing joint written statement. The present appellant-defendant No. 1, after appearing in the suit, filed a separate written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiff. She also denied to have taken the plaintiff as a Chela of the Math. According to her, the plaintiff had no right, title and interest in the suit property. It was further pleaded by defendant No. 1 that she brought the plaintiff to look after the Math and its properties. Further case of the appellant-defendant No. 1 was that the consideration money for purchase of some of the properties was advanced by her, but the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 got the sale deeds executed in his name, which the appellant-defendant No. 1 could not know as she is an illiterate lady. The suit land is in the cultivating possession of the appellant-defendant No. 1 through her servants.

( 3 ) IN order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined as many as five witnesses and exhibited documents marked as Exts. 1 to 7. Defendant No. 1 also examined eight witnesses and exhibited documents marked as exts. A to H.

( 4 ) IN view of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

" (1) Whether the plaintiff is the Chela of the suit Math and whether he has right, title or possession of the suit properties ? (2) Whether the 1st defendant is the owner and in possession of the suit properties ? (3) Whether the sale deed dated 2-3-1972 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation ? (4) Whether the plaintiff played fraud and secured other sale deeds in his favour instead of in the name of defendant No. 1 ? (5) Whether there is no cause of action for the suit ? (6) Whether the court-fee paid is correct ? (7) To what relief ?"

( 5 ) AFTER considering the evidence and the documents, the trial Court came to the finding that the plaintiff was the chela of defendant No. 1; that the contents of Exts. 1 and 2 were not explained to defendant No. 1 and she had executed the same without knowing what she was executing, and that the plaintiff was not in possession over the suit land. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the payment of consideration under exts. 1 and 2 by the plaintiff cannot be believed. However, the trial Court categorically held that the plaintiff has got title and possession over the lands purchased under exts. 3 to 8 and decreed the suit in part with regard to item Nos. 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the Schedule 'a properties restraining the defendants from entering upon the same vide its judgment and decree dated 10-10-1982 and 11-11-1982 respectively. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appellant-defendant No. 1 preferred T. A. No. 36 of 1984 before the learned district Judge, Berhampur, which was transferred to the Court of learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Berhampur and renumbered as T. A. No. 36 of 1984 (T. A. No. 1 of 1983 gdc ). Learned 2nd Addl. District Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide his judgment and decree dated 17-4-1986 and 30-4-1986 respectively. As against the said judgment and decree, the appellant has preferred the present second appeal.

( 6 ) MR. Balakrishna Rao appearing on beha