JUDGMENT :- Defendants 1 and 2 are in appeal against a reversing decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuttack in a suit for title, possession and recovery of damages.

2. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants 1 and 2 were the owners of the disputed property and sold the same to plaintiff No. 1 - a deity represented by its marfatdars plaintiffs 3 to 6, 10 and some others - under a registered sale deed dated 19-8-49 for a consideration of Rs. 100/-. It was settled that the consideration for the sale would be paid at the time of endorsement of the registration ticket. Title passed under the sale deed and the vendee, that is, the deity represented by the marfatdars became the owner of the property. Defendants 1 and 2 gave up possession of the disputed property and the deity came to possess the same. The sale deed was lying with defendants 1 and 2 and they refused to part with it during the current settlement operations and even went to the extent of denying the sale. In 1950 defendants 1 and 2 took away the crop raised by the plaintiff.

3. Defendants 1 to 3 in their joint written statement contended that defendants 1 and 2 were the owners in possession of the disputed property an