JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

This is plaintiff’s appeal against an affirming judgment.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant no.1 was the owner of the suit land. The consolidation record of right was published in his name. To press his legal necessity, defendant no.1 approached him on 13.7.1985 to sell the land for consideration of Rs.5000/-. The suit property was adjoining to his homestead land.

He accepted the proposal. He paid an amount of Rs.2600/-towards advance to defendant no.1. Possession was delivered to him by defendant no.1 with a stipulation that the latter would take necessary permission and execute the registered sale deed on receipt of balance consideration of Rs.2400/-from him. He requested defendant no.1 number of times to obtain permission to execute the sale deed. While the matter stood thus, on 18.11.1987 he came to know that defendant no.1 was going to sell the suit land in favour of defendant no.2. He filed objection before the Tahasildar, Binka not to accord permission to sell the land. The Tahasildar had ignored the objection and illegally accorded permission to sell the chaka to defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2. While the matter stood thus, defendant no.2 tried to take forcible possession of the land on the strength of the sale deed, but he could not. He was ready and willing to purchase the entire land. With this factual scenario, the suit had been filed for declaration that the registered sale deed dated 20.11.1987 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is illegal, for a direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit plot in favour of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction or in alternative for a decree of damages of Rs.12,000/-.

3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, both the defendants entered appearance and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that defendant no.1 had not executed any agreement to sale in favour of plaintiff, nor received an amount of Rs.2600/-from him to sell the suit plot. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. About five years before defendant no.1 incurred a loan of Rs.2600/-from Uprendra Panda, elder brother of the plaintiff. On 15.10.1986, the said Upendra Panda demanded repayment of money and insisted upon him to sign on a plain paper to use the same as security for payment of loan amount. Out of fear, he had signed on the blank paper. Apprehending that his property would be grabbed, he made an endorsement on the reverse side of the plain paper that he will get back his land on return of Rs.2600/-. The said blank paper had been utilized for agreement to sell. He entered into an agreement with defendant no.2 on 11.9.1985 to sell the land for consideration of Rs.10,000/-. Since a part of chaka could not be transferred, he wanted to sell the entire chaka. The defendant no.2 agreed for the same. The consideration money for the entre chaka was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. While the matter stood thus, the defendant no.1 applied the Tahasildar, Binka for permission to sell the land in favour of defendant no.2. The Tahasildar granted permission. Thereafter the defendant no.1 sold the entire Chaka no.96 of village Urle to defendant no.2 on receipt of balance consideration money and executed a sale deed in his favour on 20.11.1987. Possession of the land was delivered to vendee. The plaintiff had not objected for grant of permission. The defendant no.2 is the owner in possession of a suit land and the bona fide purchaser of value.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as seven issues. To prove the case, the plaintiff had examined three witnesses and on his behalf, six documents were executed. The defendants had examined two witnesses and on their behalf, four documents were exhibited. On a thread bare analysis of evidence on record and pleadings, the learned trial court came to hold that agreement for sa