JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - Defendants 15 to 23 are the Appellants in this second appeal against the confirming judgment of the lower appellate Court arising out of a suit where the main prayers of the Plaintiffs are that the Plaintiffs? rights on the basis of the purchase be declared; that it may further e declared that Defendants 1 to 14 have no right, title and possession over the land in suit and that the Plaintiffs? possession be confirmed. The Plaintiffs? also have prayed in the alternative that if it be found that Defendants 1 to 14 have abiding interest in the property in dispute, the purchase money to the extent of Rs. 3850/- together with interest may be refunded to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs claim title to the property in dispute on the basis of a sale deed dated 8th January 1952, the vendors being the present Appellant-Defendants 15 to 23. The purchase was for a consideration of Rs. 3850/-. Defendants 1 to 14 having disturbed the possession of the Plaintiffs on the basis of their sikimi rights, the Plaintiffs have come with the present suit. 2. Defendants 1 to 14 assert their sikimi rights and they further deny the Plaintiffs? claim for Khas possession in respect of the disputed land. Defendants 15 to 23, the present Appellants assert that whatever right, title and interest they had, they had parted with them on the basis of the Kabala in favour of the Plaintiffs who parted with the consideration with full knowledge of the position; but nevertheless they are not entitled to the refund of the consideration money. 3. Both the Courts below have, however, decreed the Plaintiffs? suit to the extent of the alternative prayer that Defendants 15 to 23 are liable to pay back the consideration money with interest. So the present second appeal by Defendants 15 to 23. 4. At the outset, I must observe, the Courts below have gone wrong in law in having completely ignored the covenant embodied in the sale-deed itself. The Courts below have ordered refund of the consideration money on the basis that the Appellants have failed to deliver Khas possession of the disputed land. There is no covenant within the four corners of the sale-deed that the Plaintiffs will be entitled to Khas possession. The Courts below have ordered refund of the consideration money on the basis that the Appellants have failed to deliver Khas possession of the disputed land. There is no covenant within the four corners of the sale-deed that the Plaintiffs will be entitled to Khas possession. On the contrary in the sale-deed the vendors asserted that they were in possession of the disputed property and since the date of the Kabala the Plaintiffs would be entitled to the same. There is no denial that Defendants 15 to 23 had superior rights in respect of the disputed property which was the subject matter of the sale deed. On a plain construction of the sale-deed itself, it is clear Defendants 15 to 23 were liable to deliver possession which the property in dispute admits of, that is, the possession as landlords subject to the rights of Defendants 1 to 14. The Courts below have found that Defendants 1 to 14 have sikimi rights and the finding is not challenged. In my opinion, it is correct. But nevertheless Defendants 1 to 14 do not deny the superior rights of the present Plaintiffs who obtained the same on the basis of the Kabala. It cannot, therefore be asserted for a moment that there was any default on the part of the present Appellants on account of which the basis of the covenant in the sale-deed they are liable to pay back the consideration money. 5. The lower appellate Court has further relied upon a circular Order dated 7th July 1933 issued by the Raja and Ruling Chief of Keonjhar which runs as follows: Brahmottar rands in the State can be transferred to none but Brahmins without altering the incidents of the tenure. When any State dues become otherwise irrecoverable and no Brahmin purchasers are forthcoming for such Dan lands, those can be transferred to no Brahmin purchasers with my sanction on no other but Rayati basis. It is not necessary to express how far it is binding as law of the land. But even accepting the position, it appears that the sale-deed cannot be taken to be completely void. There is no material from which it can be suggested for a moment that the Ruling Chief had taken steps of avoiding the sale. The facts remain, therefore, that the sale stands. But even accepting the position, it appears that the sale-deed cannot be taken to be completely void. There is no material from which it can be suggested for a moment that the Ruling Chief had taken steps of avoiding the sale. The facts remain, therefore, that the sale stands. The lower appellate Court also has referred to the provisions of Section 65 of the Contract Act. In my opinion, in the aforesaid circumstances, the Plaintiffs will not be entitled to the provisions of Section 65 as the agreement between the parties has not been discovered to be void, nor has the contract become void. Moreover, it is quite clear that the parties know of the position all through before they entered into the transaction which is being impugned. In my opinion, therefore, in the circumstances the order passed by the Courts below for refund of the consideration money must be vacated. 6. It must be made clear, however, that the trial Court while discussing the question as to the genuineness of the Kabala dated 8th January 1952 had come to the conclusion that the transaction was a genuine one and for consideration. This finding is neither challenged by any party nor is there any flaw in the finding, The position, therefore, is clear that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief to the extent of their first prayer, that is, the purchased rights of the Plaintiffs over the lands in suit are declared and possession of the Plaintiffs also is confirmed. It is to be made clear that it is not the Khas possession which is being confirmed but it is the possession of the superior rights. Mr. Mishra, appearing on behalf of Defendants 1 to 14, states before me that Defendants 1 to 14 claim no more that sikimi rights and they do acknowledge the superior rights of the Plaintiffs. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the trial Court has committed a slip in not having declared the purchased rights of the Plaintiffs in the ordering portion of his judgment inspite of the position that he had found categorically after full discussion that the Plaintiffs purchase was a genuine transaction and for consideration. As I have indicated above as the Plaintiffs? superior rights have been acknowledged by all the Defendants, they are entitled to the aforesaid relief. As I have indicated above as the Plaintiffs? superior rights have been acknowledged by all the Defendants, they are entitled to the aforesaid relief. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the decree passed by the Courts below is modified to the above extent that the Plaintiffs? superior rights or the basis of the purchase are declared and the possession of the superior rights is confirmed. The order passed by the Courts below for refund of the purchase money is set aside. Parties are to bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed