IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

R.S.A. No.431 of 2003

(In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908)

Md. Nayeem @ Md. Nayeen Ansari …. Appellant

-versus-

Chaitan Charan Pradhan and others …. Respondents

Appeared in this case:-

For Appellant : Mr. D. P. Mohanty, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. S.K. Nayak-2, Advodate

Appeared in this case:-

CORAM:

JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing : 17.11.2025 / date of judgment : 23.12.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming

judgment.

2. The appellant in this 2^nd appeal was the plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.19 of 1991-I and appellant before the 1^st

appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.40 of 2000.

3. The respondents in this 2^nd appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.19 of 1991-I and respondents before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.40 of 2000.

4. The suit of the plaintiff(appellant) vide T.S. No.19 of 1991-I against the defendants(respondents) before the trial court was a suit for declaration of title over the Schedule-A suit properties as well as for a declaration that, the cancellation Deed No.821 dated 22.07.1989 as null and void and for confirmation his possession over the Schedule-A suit properties.

5. As per the case of the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 being in need of money for his legal necessities, he offered for selling the suit properties, i.e., Ac.0.34 decimals of Plot No.12 under Khata No.130 in Village- Bhaluka under Champua Police Station in the district of Keonjhar in month of May, 1989 to the plaintiff, to which, the plaintiff agreed to purchase. Then, after taking consideration amount thereof, i.e., Rs.5,000/-(rupees five thousand) from the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 delivered possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff in the said month of May, 1989 with an oral promise that, he(defendant no.1) shall execute the sale deed in respect of the same on its next month. Then, on dated 17.06.1989, the defendant no.1 executed the sale deed in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff and handed over the registration ticket to the plaintiff. Then, the plaintiff obtained the registered sale deed from the office of the Sub-registrar. Subsequently, in the month of July, 1989, the defendant no.1 executed and registered a deed of cancellation on dated 22.07.1989 cancelling the sale deed dated 17.06.1989 executed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties on the ground of non-payment of consideration of amount and created disturbances in the possession of the plaintiff in the suit properties. For which, a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated between them.

Therefore, without getting any way, the plaintiff filed the suit vide T.S. No.19 of 1991-I against the defendant no.1 arraying some others as defendants praying for declaration of his title over the suit properties as well as for a declaration that, the deed of cancellation dated 22.07.1989 executed by the defendant no.1 cancelling the sale deed dated 17.06.1989 as null and void.

6. Having been noticed from the learned trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.19 of 1991-I filed by the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 contested the same filing his written statement taking his stands that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the suit. The suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. The suit properties are not under the possession of the plaintiff, but, the same is under his joint possession along with his co-sharers. He(defendant no.1) had never offered to sale the suit properties to anybody including the plaintiff. He has also not received any consideration amount from the plaintiff for selling the suit properties. He has not delivered the possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff. The suit land was/is