The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the validity of an agreement to sell and the validity of sale deeds under the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K.Rath, J

Plaintiff is the appellant against an affirming judgment in a suit for declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendant no.3 by the defendant nos.1 and 2 on 15.12.1993 vide Exts.A and B are void and inoperative, for a direction to the defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of balance consideration of Rs.700/-from him within the stipulated period and for permanent injunction.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant nos.1 and 2 were the owners of the suit land. They entered into an agreement with him on 10.04.1989 to sell the suit land. They received a sum of Rs.2500/-from him towards advance consideration. Delivery of possession of the suit land was made by the defendants 1 and 2. He applied before the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar seeking permission to sell the suit land in his favour and accordingly permission was accorded by the competent authority. It is further stated that the defendant nos.1 and 2 received a further sum of Rs.300/-towards balance consideration from him on 25.12.1989. In spite of receipt of the consideration amount in part and delivery of possession in pursuance of the agreement, the defendants 1 and 2 avoided to execute the registered sale deed in his favour. Instead they executed fake sale deeds in favour of the defendant no.3 on 12.8.1993. It is further stated that soon after delivery of possession, he developed the nature of the suit land and only to harass the plaintiff, they have executed the sale deeds in favour of the defendant no. 3.

3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is stated that defendant no.1 was in need of money for the marriage of his daughter. To press the legal necessity, he sold the suit land to the defendant no. 3 by executing the sale deed. The defendant no.2 was also in need of money for construction of a new building and sold his land in favour of defendant no.3 by executing the sale deed. They both delivered possession of the suit land in favour of defendant no.3 who is in peaceful possession of the same. The plaintiff with a view to harass them has filed the suit.

4. On the basis of the inter se pleadings, learned trial court framed three issues. The same are quoted below;

“(1) Whether the defendant nos. 1 and 2 entered into a valid contract for sale of suit land in favour of the plaintiff?

(2) Whether the sale deed executed by defendant nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant no.3 is invalid and inoperative in the eye of law?

(3) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?

5. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined four witnesses and on his behalf thirteen documents had been exhibited. The defendants had examined five witnesses and on their behalf, three documents had been exhibited. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff failed to prove that the agreement to sale vide Ext.1 is a valid document. He has paid a sum of Rs.2800/-to defendants 1 and 2. Accordingly, answered issue no.1. In issue no.2, learned trial court held that the registered sale deed nos.1741 dated 15.12.1993 and 1742 dated 15.12.1993 vide Exts.A and B respectively are valid documents and answered issue no.2 in favour of the defendants. With regard to issue no.3, learned trial court directed defendants 1 and 2 to refund an amount of Rs.2800/-to the plaintiff. Held so, learned trial court dismissed the suit and directed the defendants 1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.2800/-with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 10.4.1989 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has unsuccessfully challenged the same before the learned District Judge, Khurda, Bhubaneswar in Title Appeal No.24/16 of 1997/1996, which was eventually dismissed.

6. The second appeal was admitted on 29.11.2002 on the following substantial questions of law;

“1. Whether both the courts below were justif