The court established that a purchaser cannot assert rights against prior ownership documented and witnessed in earlier sale deeds, reinforcing principles of estoppel in property titles.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, in this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment and decree 22.05.1989 and 22.06.1989 respectively passed by the learned 2^ND Additional District Judge, Berhampur in T.A. No.98 of 1988 (T.A. No.33/84 GDC).

The Respondent No.1, as the Plaintiff, had filed the suit arraigning this Appellant as the Defendant No.1 and another, namely, Naran Gouda as Defendant No.2. The suit stood numbered as T.S. No.80 of 1980 in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska. The suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The said suit being dismissed, the Respondent No.1, as the unsuccessful Plaintiff, had carried the First Appeal.

During pendency of that First Appeal, the Defendant No.2, who had been arraigned therein as Respondent No.2, having died, his legal representatives have come on record and they are the Respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(d).

The First Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1, as the unsuccessful Plaintiff, has been allowed and the right, title and interest of Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) over the suit land has been declared and the Defendants have been directed to give vacant possession of the suit land.

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 one Ganesh Chandra Panda had purchased the suit land from one Madhaba Gouda in the year 1955 and he was in possession of the same. Ganesh, having purchased the suit land, had sold portions of the same to Rusia Gouda and others. Subsequently, the suit land to the extent of Ac.0.81 cents was left with him, which he sold to the Plaintiff in the year 1968 for a consideration of Rs.500/- followed by delivery of possession. The Plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the same. It is stated that the Defendants, without any justification, created trouble in his possession. He, therefore, filed the suit.

4. The Defendants, in their written statement, have taken the stand that the suit land is the ancestral property of Ganesh Panda and Prasanna and in the family partition, it had fallen to the share of Prasanna, who, in turn, had sold it to the Defendants on 31.01.1963 by registered sale deed in which that Ganesh was an attesting witness. According to their case, the suit land having been purchased by them from Prasanna way back in the year 1963 under registered sale deed, Ganesh had no such right over the suit land and had no authority to execute any sale deed for sale of the said land. The sale deed thus is a fake one being not followed by delivery of possession and also without consideration. It is stated that the Executive Magistrate has rightly declared their possession over the same.

5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court has framed four issues. Answering the crucial issues with regard to the right, title and interest in respect of the suit land in favour of Ganesh and consequentially, the same flowing from the Plaintiffs, who are the purchasers from Ganesh; upon examination of evidence and their evaluation, the answer is that no title has been conveyed to the Plaintiff under Ext.4, the registered sale deed executed by Ganesh on 01.02.1968 and the title of the Defendants over the suit land has in no way been affected thereby.

The suit having been dismissed, the unsuccessful Plaintiff, having carried the Appeal, has been successful. The First Appellate Court has overturned the findin