The Court upheld the validity of the earliest sale deed, ruling that subsequent transactions without proper authority and consent are void, while affirming jurisdiction based on registration location.

JUDGMENT :

R.K.PATTANAIK, J.

1. The appellants have preferred the instant appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing the impugned judgment and decree promulgated in RFA No. 31 of 2003; RFA No. 70 of 2003; and RFA No. 95 of 2004 by the learned Adhoc Additional District Jude, FTC No. IV, Cuttack, whereby, the decision in T.S. No. 72 of 1997 (I) of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2^nd Court, Cuttack for having decreed the suit was confirmed on the grounds inter alia that the same is untenable in law and on account of rejection of defence plea of fraud on registration with respect to the sale deed dated 12^th June, 1991. As to the appeal in R.S.A No. 357 of 2010, it is at the instance of a non-party to the suit in T.S. No.72 of 1997 on similar grounds questioning the correctness and judicial propriety of the impugned findings of learned courts below.

2. In fact, deceased respondent No.1 instituted the suit seeking reliefs, such as, right, title and interest over half of the suit land to be declared in her favour and also to set aside the sale deed i.e. RSD No.4258 dated 6^th September, 1991 executed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (deceased respondent Nos.3 and 4) and also to declare agreement dated 19^th October, 1993 between defendant Nos. 1 (deceased respondent No.3) and defendant No.4 to be not binding to her and also the agreement dated 3^rd November, 1993 to be void and furthermore, restraining defendant No.1 to sale or enter into any such agreement for sale in respect of the same with injunction against defendant Nos. 4, 5 and 6 from entering upon it or raise any construction thereon and to demolish any such structure or construction already put up, in the meanwhile. The suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 to 5. Considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 16 issues and answered them all and finally, concluded that there is no fraud on registration which is claimed by the appellants with a finding that defendant Nos. 2 & 3 could not have transacted once again on 6th September, 1991 in view of the deed dated 12^th June, 1991 and consequently, confirmed the right, title and interest in favour of respondent No.1 with respect to 50% share leaving the remainder of defendant No.1, as both of them had purchased schedule property vide RSD No.2504 from defendant Nos. 2 and 3. In other words, the sale deed dated 6^th September, 1991 executed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1 alone was declared invalid. Furthermore, the learned Trial Court directed defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to identify the land situate within the limits of jurisdiction at Cuttack to ensure delivery of the same to deceased respondent No.1 and defendant No.1, namely, deceased respondent No.2 succeeded by respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(h). Being aggrieved of, defendant Nos. 4 and 5, defendant No.1 and the appellant in RSA No. 357 of 2010 filed the appeals in RFA No. 31 of 2003; RFA No. 70 of 2003; and RFA No. 95 of 2004 respectively. The learned Lower Appellate Court considered the evidence on record with reference to the pleadings of the parties and ultimately, concurred the view of the learned Trial Court and similarly rejected the plea of fraud on registration thereby dismissing the appeals by a common judgment. So to say, the transaction in favour of defendant No.1 exclusively dated 6^th September, 1991 was declared null and void.

3. As against the impugned decision of the learned Lower Appellate Court, th