The failure to prove possession and the validity of the sale deed led to the dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT

D.Dash, J. - The Appellant, by filing this appeal, under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nimapara in RFA No. 183/109 of 2016-2014.

By the said judgment and decree, the lower Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2014 and 14.08.2014 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) in C.S. No. 156 of 2012.

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 suit for permanent injunction in respect of the land described in the schedule "A' of the plaint is founded on the following facts:-

The Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 having acquired the property in suit as also other property by virtue of order passed in OLR Case No. 279 of 1985 are in possession of the same paying land revenue to the State. That on 30.01.2011, the Defendant No. 1 threatened the Plaintiff to interfere in his peaceful possession over the suit land claiming to have purchased the suit land from the Plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 06.02.1995. The Plaintiff had no knowledge about the same. On hearing from the Defendant No.1, he applied for a certified copy of the said sale deed. Having received the sale deed on 11.02.2011, he could know that the Defendant No. 1 has managed to obtain that illegal sale deed in respect of the land under suit Sabak Plot No. 2601 area Ac 0.15 dec. corresponding to Hal not final khata No. 1413/Ka, Hal plot No. 3647/8956. According to him, the Defendant No.1 had got the deed scribed through his own man of choice and secured his own persons as the witnesses to the sale deed. All these are said to be behind back of the Plaintiff. He also claims to have received no consideration for the said transaction. The Plaintiff asserts himself to be a member of Scheduled Tribe community being 'Sabar' by caste. So the said sale deed is also attacked to have been made without the required permission under section 22 of the OLR Act and thus void in law. It is thus stated that the Defendant No.1 by virtue of the sale deed has acquired no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and that all along has been resting with the Plaintiff. During the consolidation, the suit plot bearing No. 3647/8955 and 3647/8957 had been recorded in the name of the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and portion of that, they kept for their common use. It is specifically stated that on 9.12.2012 the Defendant No. 1 came over the land and attempted to put up construction of permanent nature over the same. So, the Plaintiff filed the Suit for permanently injuncting the Defendant No.1 from interfering in his possession in respect of suit land.

4. The Defendant No. 1 contested the Suit by filing written statement. The possession of the suit land by the Plaintiff has been denied since the sale. It is averred that the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are members of Scheduled Caste community being 'Nalua-kela' by caste. It is also his case that the Plaintiff has voluntarily executed the sale deed on 06.02.1995 on receipt of agreed consideration in selling the Suit land to him. It is his further case that pursuant to the said sale made by the Plaintiff, he had been delivered with the possession of the suit land by the Plaintiff and thereby acquired right, title and interest over the suit land and has been in possession of the same. The Defendant No.1 claims himself to be a bona fide purchaser of the land in question from the Plaintiff for value and has been in possession of the same by constructing dwelling house over it. It is his case that the Plaintiff with mischievous intention in order to harass the Defendant No. 1 has filed the suit.

5. The Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in their written statement admitted the factum of execution of the sa