JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J.

1. This appeal has been filed calling in question the judgment passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Cuttack in RFA No. 83 of 2011.

The respondent No. 1 as the plaintiff had filed Civil Suit (I) No. 571 of 2006, a suit for declaration of her right, title and interest over the suit land with further declaration that the sale deed bearing No. 2086 dated 3.6.2000 executed by Chandra Sekhar Mohapatra and his daughter Smt. Suprama Mishra in her favour in respect of Ac.0.011 decimals as valid in law, with further declaration that registered sale deed No. 2878 dated 11.8.2000, executed by the respondent-defendant No. 2 in favour of respondent-defendant No. 1 to be void and to have clothed no title upon the respondent No. 1, with further prayer to restrain the respondent-defendant No. 1 from making any sort of construction over the suit land by permanent injunction as also for mandatory injunction directing him to remove the boundary wall constructed over the suit land. The suit having been decreed granting all the reliefs as prayed for, the respondent No. 1 as the unsuccessful defendant had carried the appeal. The appeal has been allowed and the plaintiff has been non-suited. Thus, the appellant being the unsuccessful plaintiff has filed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

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

2. Plaintiff's case is that land under suit plot No. 440 measuring an area of Ac.0.034 decimals which includes suit end extending to Ac.0.011 decimals originally belonged to Kalyani Patra, the defendant No. 2. The said land was sold by her to different purchasers including Chandra Sekhar Mohapatra son of Gopinath who being dead, his daughter Suprava was a party as defendant No. 3, now deleted. They had purchased Ac.0.017 decimals of land from defendant No. 2 who had delivered possession of the same to the purchaser Chandra Sekhar Mohapatra and his daughter who were thus in possession of the suit land and so also the other purchasers remained in possession of their respective purchased land. It is stated that Chandra Sekhar Mohapatra and his daughter sold Ac.0.011 decimals along with undisputed Ac.0.059 decimals from another plot to the plaintiff by virtue of registered sale deed No. 2056 dtd. 3.6.2000 in total measuring an area of Ac.0.070 decimals. The plaintiff had been delivered with the possession of the same and she claims to be in possession since the date of her purchase i.e. 3.6.2000 having right, title and interest. In the year 2001, the record of right in respect of Ac.0.011 decimals was issued in favour of the plaintiff and she has been paying the rent to the State. When the matter stood thus in the month of June 2006, defendant No. 1 created disturbance in her possession. So, a demarcation case was initiated and when notice was issued to defendant No. 1 although he did not appear yet constructed a boundary wall. It is stated that in the year 2006, defendant No. 2 had again sold Ac.0.008 decimals of land to defendant No. 1 and that is from out of the suit land measuring Ac.0.011 decimals by registered sale deed dated 11.8.2000. So taking advantage of such void sale deed wherein he was clothed with no right, title and interest in respect of the so-called purchased land, he created disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The said sale deed is challenged to be void on the face of the earlier sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as holding the field and it is also stated that defendant No. 1 has acquired no right, title and interest by virtue of the same and behind the back of the plaintiff he has mutated the said land in his favour which is non est in the eye of law! It is alleged that on 15.12.2006, as threat came from the side of the defendant No. 1 for construction of a building over the suit land, the suit ha