JUDGMENT

B. PANIGRAHI, J. — The defendants in T.S. No. 6/39 of 1981 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sundargarh in a suit for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of posses¬sion over the suit schedule land and for permanent injunction, having lost in both the Courts, below has filed this appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff-respondent in the trial Court is as follows :

Plaintiff purchased 1.0 Acre of land described in Schedule A of the plaint from appellant No.1 who was the Karta of the Joint family in the year 1965 for a consideration of Rs.500/-. Appellant No.1 sold the land for purchasing cattle and also for constructing a house. The appellants are ‘Bhuyan’ by caste which has been mentioned to be a Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, without obtaining permission from the competent authority it was not possible for defendant No.1 to transfer the land in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Thus, defendant No.1 applied for obtaining permission for sale of 1.00 Acre of land in Misc.Case No.107 of 1966-67. The petition for permission was sent to the Tahasildar for an enquiry and report. On the basis of the report of the Tahasildar, the S.D.O. accorded permission for sale of the land to the plaintiff.

3. Defendant No.1 executed the sale deed after having understood the contents of the same by putting his L.T.I. The attesting witnesses also signed in the sale deed which was regis¬tered on 4.11.67. Immediately after the registration the plain¬tiff continued to be in possession. After purchase by the plain¬tiff, he applied for mutation of the land. Accordingly the name of the plaintiff was mutated in respect of A0.91 decimals. Since the appellants committed trespass over the suit land and forcibly sold the paddy, the plaintiff respondent filed a case under Section 447, Indian Penal Code in ICC No. 29/78. The defendants also committed theft of paddy crop for which G.R. Case No. 64/78 was registered. In both the cases appellant No.1 took the plea that he had given the suit land to the plaintiff on the basis of the usufructuary mortgage and after 7 years of possession by the plaintiff he resumed possession. In 1979 there was a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the Court of S.D.M. - cum- Executive Magistrate in Criminal Case No.43/79. But it was converted later on into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Since appellant No.1 being emboldened after he was acquitted in a criminal case of trespass, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for the afore¬said relief.

4. The appellants case as described in their written statement is as follows :

The suit land was never intended to be sold by appellant No.1 to the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff respondent as a matter of fact took the suit land on possessory mortgage. Defendant No.1 being an illiterate Scheduled Tribe person, therefore, believing it to be usufructuary mortgage put his L.T.I. He was a liquor addict and under the influence of liquor, the plaintiff-respondent maneuvered to take a document from him. Defendant No.1 after expiry of 7 years got into posses¬sion and since then he has been enjoying the same. As the plain¬tiff-respondent is rich man in the locality, he therefore, start¬ed one case after another taking advantage of simplicity of defendant No.1. The plaintiff taking advantage of defendant No.1’s illiteracy and simplicity got the deed fraudulently exe¬cuted by taking the L.T.I. from defendant No.1, but it was never meant to be a deed of conveyance. The market value of the suit land was much more than Rs.5000/- for which it is allegedly conveyed to the plaintiff.

5. The trial Court held that defendant No.1 sold the suit land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.500/- and execut¬ed a deed of conveyance on 4.11.67. It has been further held that after such sale deed the plaintiff’s name was mutated in the record of right. Defendant No.1 having executed the document knowingly, therefore, he divested all his right from the suit land. Wi