JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This is a Defendants' appeal against the confirming judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Bhawanipatna in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 2. The two Plaintiffs are the sons of one Bala Danta. They claim the suit-property to be their ancestral property. Their case is that the Defendants some how managed to mutate their names in respect of the suit-land and forcibly dispossessed them in the year 1957. The Plaintiffs have therefore filed the present suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession as stated above. 3. Defendant No. 1 is the father of Defendants 2 to 5. Their case is that Bala Danta the father of the Plaintiffs sold the suit-property in favour of Defendant No. 1 on 27-1-1942 by executing a sale-deed (ext. A) on a stamped instrument and delivered possession of the same to the Defendants who thereafter have remained in possession all along. They challenged the Plaintiffs' case of dispossession in the year 1957. 4. Both the courts found that ext. A had not been properly proved, none of the attesting witnesses having been examined u/s 68 of the Evidence Act. There was no delivery of possession in pursuance of Ext. A and the Plaintiffs were all along in possession until they were dispossessed sometime in 1957. Thus the trial court accepted the Plaintiffs? version and decreed the suit. On appeal by the Defendants the appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The Defendants have accordingly preferred this second appeal. 5. The concurrent findings of the courts below that there was no delivery of possession in pursuance of ext. A and that the Plaintiffs were all along in possession until they were dispossessed in 1957 have not been rightly challenged in this Court by Mr. Acharya learned Counsel for the Appellants. His contention, however, was that the courts below did not properly construe the provisions of Section 22(b) of the Sonepur Bhumi Bidhi (land laws) and inasmuch as that provision does require attestation of any sale deed, the question of proving the document by examining one of the attesting witnesses as required u/s 68 of the Evidence Act does not arise. His contention, however, was that the courts below did not properly construe the provisions of Section 22(b) of the Sonepur Bhumi Bidhi (land laws) and inasmuch as that provision does require attestation of any sale deed, the question of proving the document by examining one of the attesting witnesses as required u/s 68 of the Evidence Act does not arise. Section 22(b) of the Sonepur Bhumi Bidhi requires that the deed of conveyance of an occupancy tenancy has to be signed not only by two persons, but the consent of the Gountia by subscribing his signature to the document is also necessary to validate the transaction. In the present case it is found that the Gountia has not given his signature on the sale-deed, ext. A. D.W. 2 is the son of the Gountia of the village. According to him it was he who gave the signature for his father. Obviously, therefore, the Gountia did not put his signature to the alleged sale-deed, ext. A. The courts below also found d.w. 2 to be thoroughly unreliable. Even assuming that Section 22(b) merely requires signing of the document without attesting the same in the technical and legal sense of the term so as to attract the provision of Section 68 of the Evidence Act still ext. A must be held to be an invalid document for want of signature of the Gountia on the said document. In no case therefore ext. A can be said to be of any assistance to the Defendants. 6. Apart from the above, there is another formidable difficulty in the way of the Defendants. The suit-land is admittedly Jagir land and that being so, Section 22(b) of the Sonepur Bhumi Bidhi has no application to the same, as it applies only to cases of conveyances in respect of occupancy holdings. The relevant provision in respect of Jagir lands (service tenures) is contained in Section 21 and Sub-clause (1) of Clause (b) thereof provides that the service-tenure holders are entitled to settle their service lands in Sikmi rights by notifying the fact to the Gountia of the village and to the Tahsil office only for one year and Sub-clause (2) provides that besides creating Sikimi tenure for one year only with the sanction of the Tahsildar the service-tenure holder shall not be entitled to transfer the holding in any other manner. In other words, an out and out sale as contemplated under ext. A is prohibited by law. D.W. 4 the Defendant himself admits that the suit-land is admittedly his Jagir land not an occupancy holding and so the permission of the Ruler was indispensable. He further admitted that the Ruler's permission has not been obtained. Clearly therefore the sale was not permissible under the law and was not a valid one to bestow title on the Defendants. Further, Clause (3), part II (Miscellaneous Provisions relating to Civil Procedure), in Vol. II of Sonepur State Code provides that no sort of transfer as contemplated by the laws of the State shall be enforceable in law if the required sanction of the State has not been obtained, or, where in some cases the consent of the superior land-holder has been provided in law, such consent has not been obtained. We have already seen that the consent of the superior landlord, the Gountia has not been obtained in any case and accordingly the sale in favour of the Defendants is not supported by law and cannot confer a valid title on them. 7. The courts below have found title and possession with the Plaintiffs within 12 years of the suit and that being so, the Plaintiffs' suit was rightly decreed. There is thus no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs. But so far as this Court is concerned, parties to bear their own costs. Final Result : Dismissed