The sale deed lacking prior permission/sanction of the Court under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, was found void, and the Plaintiffs' failure to prove possession of the suit land led to the dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J.

1. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) have assailed the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2005 and 20.08.2005 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in R.F.A. No. 114 of 2003.

By the same, the Appeal filed by the present Appellants, being the unsuccessful Plaintiffs before the Trial Court under section 96 of the Code has been dismissed and thereby the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2003 and 19.02.2003 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court, Cuttack in T.S. No. 471 of 2001, have been confirmed.

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 Plaintiffs’ case is that one Gopaljew Thakur was the owner of Schedule-A property. The Marfatdar Harekrushna Das, who happens to be the father of Defendant No. 2 and grandfather of Defendant No. 1, had executed registered sale deed dated 29.05.1970 in favour of Defendant No. 1 then a minor represented by his father guardian (Defendant No. 2). Subsequently, the Defendant No. 2 executed a sale deed in favour of one Rabindra Kumar Sethy, the husband of Plaintiff No. 1 and father of Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 for a consideration of Rs. 4,750/- concerning the land of an area of Ac. 0.10 decimals, which is the subject matter of the suit as described in Schedule-B of the plaint. It is stated that from the date of purchase of the suit land, said Rabindra remained in possession of the same and on his death, these Plaintiffs, being his legal heirs and successors, are in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. It is their case that as Rabindra was remaining away from his village and for most of the time staying at Angul for his business, he could not produce the sale deed before the Settlement Authority. So, the land in the suit stood recorded in the name of Hare Krushna Das, the Marfatdar of Deity in the settlement record. It is their case that the Defendants had all such knowledge regarding the sale deed and the physical possession of the suit land. Taking advantage of the absence of Rabindra, the Defendant No. 1, with a view to grab the property, instituted a collusive suit, i.e. T.S. No. 196 of 1987 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, First Court, Cuttack impleading his father as the Marfatdar of the Deity, namely, Gopaljew Thakur. The prayer was for correction of the Hal Record of Right by including the name of Defendant No. 1 as the owner of Schedule-A property, which includes Schedule-B property. The suit was decreed in terms of the compromise on 25.01.1990. The Plaintiffs having no knowledge about the suit and its disposal, as aforesaid, when found the Defendants to be in a mood to forcibly dispossess them from the suit land in Schedule-B, the suit has come to be filed.

4. The Defendant No. 1, coming to contest the suit, in his written statement, has questioned the validity of the sale deed projected by the Plaintiffs as the document of title in respect of the suit land on the ground that it is void in the eye of law as the same was not with the prior permission/sanction of the Court, as mandatorily required under law. It is his case that he has been all along in possession of the suit land.

5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as eight issues. Coming to answer all those issues, upon examination of the evidence and their evaluation, it has been held that the sale deed (Ext.3) executed by Defendant No. 2 in respect of the suit land is invalid in law being not with prior permission of the Court, as required under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short ‘the HMG Act’) and, therefore, the Plaintiffs have not acquired any right, title and interest over the suit property through that Ext.3. The next important answer has been that the Plaintiffs have failed