JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - Plaintiff-Respondent filed the suit for declaration of his right, title and confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession in any manner over the suit property. 2. Plaintiff's case was that he had purchased the suit land measuring 37' x 23' with an area of 10 cents from the eastern side of survey plot No. 232/1 situated in the Christian Street of Bhanjanagar N.A.C. for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- on 16-9-1971 by a registered sale deed (Ext. 1) from the Baptist Missionary Society Corporation of London through Reverend Jugal Kishore Mohanty, the power of attorney holder. Since the date of purchase he was in possession of the same. As the Defendants wanted to forcibly occupy the same, he filed the suit for the reliefs as aforesaid against the Defendants in a representative capacity on behalf of all concerned. Defendants in their joint written statement stated that the Baptist Missionary Society Corporation of London had no right, title and interest over the suit land nor they were in possession of the same at any time. So Reverend Jugal Kishore Mohanty, the power of attorney holder had no right to sell the said land to the Plaintiff, and hence the Plaintiff cannot acquire any vied title to the same. The suit land is within the premises of the Church at Bhanjanagar which is in possession of all the Defendants and there was a thatched house on the suit land which was also being utilised as the residence of the teacher of the Church. The suit plot No. 232/1 had been granted to the Christians for residential purposes by the Collector, Ganjam in Revenue Case No. 773 of 1896 on 27-3-1896 prohibiting its assignment or encroachment by anybody. The Defendants, therefore, contended that there was no cause of action for the suit and the same would be liable to be dismissed. 3. The learned Munsif after considering the evidence on record held that the suit land along with the house standing thereon was in obsession of the Baptist Mission Society Corporation of Lodon before the sale deed. Ext. 1, was executed in favour of the Plaintiff and from the date of execution of Ext. 1 the Plaintiff was in possession of the same. He held that the suit was maintainable and accordingly decreed the same. Ext. 1, was executed in favour of the Plaintiff and from the date of execution of Ext. 1 the Plaintiff was in possession of the same. He held that the suit was maintainable and accordingly decreed the same. Defendants earned Title Appeal No. 13 of 1975 which was heard by the Subordinate Judge, Aska. The Subordinate Judge confirmed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned courts below on a consideration of both oral and documentary evidence such as Exts. 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 14/1 and 17 held that the Baptist Missionary Society Corporation of London was the owner in possession and management of the suit plot. Both the courts below have categorically held that the Baptist Church of Bhanjanagar, Defendant No. 15 (Respondent No. 9 in this appeal) is not the owner in occupation of the suit land, and the Plaintiff has acquired a valid title by way of Ext. 1 dated 16-9-1971 and has been in possession of the same since then. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-contended that the suit property is a grant made by the Government for which alienation was prohibited u/s 3 of the Government Grant Act, 1895 and as such any transfer in favour of the Plaintiff was invalid and no title could accrue in favour of the Plaintiff. Reliance was placed on Ext. B, the certified copy of the Faisala B In am Register where in column 13 it has been noted that assignment or encroachment was prohibited by the Collector in M.C. No. 773 of 1896 on 27-3-1896. As already stated the owner of the suit property was the Baptist Missionary Society. Corporation of London and the. Baptist Church of Bhanjanagar (Defendant No. 15) had no right, title or interest over the same. The other Defendants have claimed through Defendant No. 15 as would appear from paragraph 5 of the written statement. Thus when the Bapstist Church of Bhanjanagar has no right, title or interest over the suit property, the other Defendants cannot claim that the alienation was void. Assuming that alienation is prohibited u/s 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Government can only question the validity of the transfer. Since the appeal is dismissed on merits the question of abatement need pot be gone into. 5. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. No costs. Assuming that alienation is prohibited u/s 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Government can only question the validity of the transfer. Since the appeal is dismissed on merits the question of abatement need pot be gone into. 5. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed