JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J.

1. The appellant in this appeal has called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Kalahandi in T.A. No. 49 of 1982 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna in decreeing the suit filed by the present appellant as the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

3. The plaintiff’s case is that in the year 1967 his father Debi Prasad passed away. During the life time of Debi Prasad, there was no partition of ancestral properties with his brothers although each brother was in possession of separate portions of lands for convenience. Therefore, the Settlement Authorities had recorded separate possession of each of the branches in respect of separate portion of lands. It is stated that Debi Prasad died during the minority of the plaintiff and as such, the defendant no. 4, the elder brother of the plaintiff remained under the direct influence of his uncle Gouri Sankar, the father of defendant no. 1, 2. It is stated that Gouri Sankar was helping him in supervising the cultivation of the suit lands and in managing the affairs.

Next allegation remains that the defendant no. 3 with a view to grab the suit had fraudulently obtained a sale-deed dated 19.04.1977 in favour of defendant no. 1 and 2 who are none other than his sons and it is said that at that time plaintiff was a minor. Though it is shown that plaintiff and defendant no. 4 executed the sale-deed, they never received any consideration much less to say as mentioned to be Rs. 4,000/- in the said sale-deed. The sale-deed also is said to be not supported by any legal necessity. It is alleged that though the sale-deed should have been executed at Dharamgarh, it has been so done at Bhawanipatna where the executants were not residing. The sale-deed is also challenged on the ground that the properties were not partitioned in metes and bounds and that too the sale was without the knowledge of defendant no. 8, the sister of the plaintiff. It is stated that defendant no. 3 thereafter forcibly ousted the plaintiff and defendant no. 4 from the said property and then the plaintiff could know about the execution of said sale deed with ulterior motive. So, the suit was filed for declaration of the said sale-deed executed by him and defendant no. 4 in favour of defendant no. 1 and 2 as void, as also for recovery of possession of the suit land.

The defendant no. 1 to 3 in their written statement while traversing the plaint averments totally denied that at any point of time defendant no. 3 was managing properties of plaintiff and defendant no. 4 and that he was exercising any sort of control over them. It is stated that defendant no. 4 was working as a teacher and so entire family wanted to move to Bhawanipatna. For that reason, they approached defendant no. 1 and 2 for sale of the land and accordingly consideration was fixed at Rs. 4,000/-. These defendants claim that the ancestral properties in the hand of the parties were partitioned in metes and bounds among Debi Prasad and other brothers and after said partition, plaintiff’s father had got the suit land in his share. These defendants assert the year of death of Debi Prasad to be 1958 and not 1957 as stated by the plaintiff. They also stated that the plaintiff’s mother was quite intelligent and she was also looking after her sons and their properties. It is denied that defendant no. 3 had ever exercised any influence either over the plaintiff or defendant no. 4 who was quite an educated person and they aver that no such fraud has been practiced upon them as falsely alleged. It is also stated that the plaintiff is an educated person and married and had all the knowledge about the sale etc. These defendants assert the sale-deed to be valid and genuine and to have been duly executed with the full knowledge o