A non-party to a sale deed lacks the standing to challenge it based on non-passing of consideration or legal necessity, as established by precedents.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the confirming Judgment.

2. The appellant of this 2^nd Appeal was the defendant No.2 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.32 of 1987 and she was the appellant before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.31 of 1996.

The respondent of this 2^nd Appeal was the sole plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.32 of 1987 and he was the sole respondent before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A.

The suit of the plaintiff (who is the sole respondent of this 2^nd Appeal) vide T.S. No.32 of 1987 was a suit for declaration.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court vide T.S. No.32 of 1987 was that, Chandra Mahato was the original owner of the suit properties. He died leaving behind his two sons namely, Ganpat & Bahadur. Ganpat died in the year 1983 leaving behind his widow wife Budhubari (defendant No.1).

The 2^nd Son of Chandra i.e. Bahadur died in the year, 1980 leaving behind his widow wife namely Janani and one son namely, Khatu (who is the sole plaintiff in the suit vide T.S. No.32 of 1987).

He (plaintiff) was adopted by his elder father i.e. Ganapat and his wife i.e. Budhubari (defendant No.1). The suit properties along with other properties were the joint and undivided properties of the brothers i.e. Ganapat and Bahadur. But, after adopting plaintiff as son of Ganapat and defendant No.1 and after the death of Ganapat, his wife (defendant No.1) brought to her sister’s daughter i.e. (defendant No.2) to her house and kept her (defendant No.2) with her (defendant No.1) and executed and registered a sale deed in respect of the suit properties vide sale deed No.1162 dated 26.05.1987 in favour of the defendant No.2 without any consideration amount and without any legal necessity, for which, that sale deed dated 26.05.1987 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 is an invalid deed, by which no interest of the suit properties has been transferred in favour of the defendant No.2.

When the plaintiff came to know about the aforesaid fictious and vague sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 on dated 26.05.1987 in favour of the defendant No.2, then, he (plaintiff) approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.32 of 1987 against the defendants praying for declaration that, he (plaintiff) is the adopted son of the defendant No.1 and to declare that the registered sale deed No.1162 dated 26.05.1987 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 in respect of the suit properties is void and illegal.

4. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.32 of 1987, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit of the plaintiff by filing their joint written statement denying the adoption of the plaintiff as the son of the defendant No.1 with their other specific pleas that, There was complete partition of the joint properties between Ganapat and Bahadur and Ganapat had never adopted the plaintiff as the son of Ganapat and defendant No.1. But, she (defendant No.1) has duly executed and registered the sale deed bearing No.1162 dated 26.05.1987 in respect of the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.2, because, she (defendant No.1) was the exclusive owner of the suit properties after partition of the same between her husband and father of the plaintiff i.e. Bahadur. For which, the suit of the plaintiff i