The validity of a sale deed must be backed by necessary permissions under the relevant Acts, and any sale deed in contravention of the statutory provisions is void.

JUDGMENT

D. Dash, J. - Since both the Appeals arise out of a common judgment followed by the decrees passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Salipur in RFA No.08 of 2020 and RFA No. 09 of 2020; those had been heard together for their disposal by common judgment.

The Respondent as the Plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No.731 of 2016 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Salipur. He has claimed a declaration in respect of his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land with further prayer of injunction. The Defendants entering appearance while filing the written statement had raised counter claim seeking declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land being the lawful purchasers vide valid sale-deed bearing No.578 dated 28.02.1983. The Trial Court having dismissed the suit; decreed the counter claim.

The unsuccessful Plaintiff being aggrieved filed two Appeals under Section-96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short hereinafter called as 'the Code') which stood numbered as RFA No.08 of 2020 and RFA No.09 of 2020. In these two Appeals, the Plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his suit in not granting any relief as prayed for by him as well as the decree passed in the counter claim lodged by the Defendants in declaring their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and granting other ancillary reliefs.

Learned Additional District Judge, Salipur, by the common judgment and decrees while setting aside the judgment and decrees passed by the Trial Court has reversed the result of the suit and the Counter Claim i.e. the suit has been decreed and the Counter Claim has been dismissed.

The Defendants thus being unsuccessful in the First Appeal have filed the present Appeal under Section-100 of the Code.

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 he is member of Scheduled Caste Community. The suit land under Khata No.26, Plot No.248, measuring Ac.0.0280 decimals in mouza Kusundaspur is his ancestral property. It stood recorded in the name of his father Adikanda Mallick in the record of right published in the consolidation operation. On the death of Adikanda, the Plaintiff became the owner and possessed the suit land. He was staying at the place of work which is away from the native village. It is stated that all of a sudden Defendant No.1 started putting up some construction over the suit land and on being asked, he raised his claim over the same as the purchaser from Adikanda, the father of the Plaintiff by registered sale-deed No.578 dated 28.02.1983. The Plaintiff's request to the Defendant No.1 not to go for any construction over the suit land was not paid any heed to. When the Defendant No.1 fast proceeded with the construction work, the Plaintiff initiated a proceeding under Section- 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide Crl. Misc. Case No.88 of 2016.

The Plaintiff then applied and obtained the certified copy of the sale- deed in question which was projected by the Defendants as the source of derivation of the title in respect of the suit land unto themselves. The copy was received by him on 02.07.2016. It finds mention as to permission for such sale under section-22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (OLR Act) as to have been obtained from the Competent Authority in Misc. Case No.468 of 1982 and the order to that effect been passed on 25.02.1983. On enquiry, the Plaintiff ascertained that his father had never applied for such permission under Section-22 of the OLR Act and that application giving rise to the Misc. Case No.488 of 1982 had been filed by one Krushna Chandra Sethi and not his father, Adikanda.

It is next stated that sale-deed dated 28.02.1983 has never been acted upon. The Plaintiff claimed to have been the owner in possession of the said land and as such paying land revenue. As for the illegal act of