(1.) Both the appeals arises out of T.A. No.49 of 1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Puri challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.08.1998 and 04.09.1998, respectively, passed in the Title Appeal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.03.1993 and 08.04.1993, respectively, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Puri in T.S. No.38 of 1990.
(2.) Originally the suit was between Jagannath Harichandan (plaintiff) and his natural son, Debaraj Harichandan (defendant), who is given in adoption to plaintiff's brother, Naranbandhu Harichandan. S.A. No.59 of 1999 has been preferred by the original defendant- Debaraj Harichandan. S.A. No.57 of 1999 has preferred by Raghunath Rath and Bijaya Kumar Rath, who were arrayed as respondent Nos.2 and 3 during pendency of the first appeal as lis pendens purchasers. Here-in-after they will be referred to as lis pendens purchasers.
(3.) The plaintiff-Jagannath Harichandan died on 29.01.1999 after judgment and decree in the Title Appeal. Therefore, his legal heirs have been permitted to be arrayed as respondent Nos.1 to 6 in both the appeals. The plaintiff-late Jagannath Harichandan filed the suit taking the stand that when the Orissa Land Reforms Act came in operation in Orissa, the plaintiff was advised by his well wishers to execute some sham deeds in favour of his wife, younger son, who was living in jointness with the plaintiff and his elder son, Debaraj, who was given in adoption to Naranbandhu Harichandan. On 01.07.1972, he along with his elder son (defendant) went to the Sub- Registrar's Office at Puri to execute and register the deeds. The defendant arranged his own men as deed writer and witnesses and got some deeds executed including one sale deed in his own name. But the contents of the sale deed were not read over and explained to the plaintiff. The defendant bore all the expenses for registration of the sale deed. The defendant got some terms and conditions incorporated in the sale deed which were favourable to him but without the knowledge and intent of the plaintiff. Though the defendant had assured to handover the sale deed to the plaintiff, the former retained the document with him. Since it was a sham deed there was no passing of consideration and it was not followed by delivery of possession. The plaintiff as usual remained in possession of the land shown to have been transferred under the sale deed. In the year 1989, the defendant threatened to cut and remove trees standing on the land in question. So the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in the court of Munsif, Puri and initiated a proceeding under Section 144, Cr.P.C. It was disposed of in favour of the defendant. So, he became emboldened and attempted to cut and remove the paddy crop standing on the land in question. So the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title, confirmation of possession, in the alternative recovery of possession, along with the relief of permanent injunction and for declaration that the sale deed is void.