JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - Defendants 1, 2 and 4 are the legal heirs of deceased-defendants 3 and 5 and are the appellants before this Court against a confirming judgment. Respondent No. 1 who is the plaintiff filed suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and for confirmation of possession. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 also prayed for declaration that the defendants have absolutely no manner of right, title and interest over the suit land and also prayed for permanent injunction. 2. Case of the plaintiff-respondents is that the suit properties originally stood recorded in the name of one Bhagat Dalai who had right of occupancy over the same. Said Bhagat Dalai had only one son namely Biswanath Dalai. After death of Bhagat Dalai his son Biswanath remained in exclusive possession of the suit properties. Biswanath was succeeded by his two sons namely Jagannath Dalai and Bhagaban Dalai. The aforesaid two brothers remained joint till their death and accordingly remained in joint possession of the suit properties. In order to meet family necessity both the brothers sold away the disputed properties comprising Ac. 0.06 decimals to one Kasinath Pani (defendant No. 12) under a registered sale-deed dated 8.8.73. After execution of the said sale-deed possession of the land was handed over to the defendant No. 12 who remained in exclusive possession thereof. Defendant No. 12 again due to necessity of funds sold Ac. 0.03 decimals of land out of the total area of Ac. 0.06 decimals in favour the plaintiff-respondent No 1 under a registered sale deed on 29.12.75 on payment of consideration amount of Rs. 1000/- and after execution of the sale-deed, possession was delivered to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The portion of the land sold to the plaintiff is on the eastern side of the plot. The plaintiff remained in peaceful possession of the purchased land. Defendants 2 to 6 created unnecessary trouble in the locality and fraudulently obtained sale-deed in respect of 1-1/2 decimals of land from out of the suit plot from defendants 7 to 11 who had absolutely no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the same. Since on the basis of fraudulent sale-deed defendants 2 to 6 threatened to disposes the plaintiff, he filed the suit. 3. Since on the basis of fraudulent sale-deed defendants 2 to 6 threatened to disposes the plaintiff, he filed the suit. 3. Defendants 1 to 5 filed joint written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and also challenged the legality of the sale-deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. It is the case of the aforesaid defendants that defendant No. 12 was looking after the aforesaid property on behalf of Jagannath and Bhagaban and for that purpose power-of-attorney was executed by the said brothers and instead of scribing power-of-attorney defendant No. 12 fraudulently scribed a sale-deed and got it executed by the aforesaid Jagannath and Bhagaban. It is also alleged that no consideration was paid by the defendant No. 12 under the sale-deed and defendant No. 12 was never in possession of the suit property. Before death of Jagannath and Bhagaban, they had sold the properties to defendants 1 to 6 on 24.11.76 and since then they are in possession undisputedly. 4. On the basis of such pleading trial Court framed as many as seven issues and decreed the suit declaring title of the property in favour of the plaintiff and confirmed his possession over the same. Trial Court also declared that the contesting defendants had no manner of right, title and interest or possession over the suit land accordingly allowed the prayer for permanent injunction. The appeal filed by the contesting defendants before the Second Addl. District Judge, Puri having been dismissed the present appeal has been filed. 5. This Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law : "1. For that in view of the finding of the learned lower appellate Court that Ext. 2 which is the basis for Ext. 1 executed by the defendant No. 12 in favour of the plaintiff shows that the name of Khati Bewa, who is admittedly entitled to 1/3rd interest in the suit property, has been interpolated, if the findings of the Courts below that Exts. 1 & 2 are genuine and the plaintiff has acquired valid title over the suit property is substainable ? 2. For that in view of the admitted fact and finding that Jagannath, Bhagaban and Khati Bewa are members of undivided joint family having 1/3rd share each in the suit property, the substantial question of law arises as to if the sale deed executed by Jagannath and Bhagaban as per Ext. 2. For that in view of the admitted fact and finding that Jagannath, Bhagaban and Khati Bewa are members of undivided joint family having 1/3rd share each in the suit property, the substantial question of law arises as to if the sale deed executed by Jagannath and Bhagaban as per Ext. 2 in respect of the entire suit property is genuine ?" 6. Shri Pati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the suit property originally stood recorded in the name of one Bhagat Dalai and after his death his son Biswanath Dalai remained in possession and Biswanath Dalai died sometime in the year 1952 leaving behind his two sons namely Jagannath Dalai and Bhagaban Dalai as well as his widow Khati Bewa who was defendant No. 11 in the suit. Therefore, at that point of time Khati Bewa had only limited interest over the property left by her husband and such interest became absolute after 1956. According to Sri Pati after 1956 all the three legal representatives of deceased Biswanath succeeded to the property and were entitled to 1/3rd share each. No further submitted that even accepting the case of the plaintiff that they purchased three decimals from Jagannath and Bhagaban the same could only be adjusted against their share of 2/3rd from out of the suit property. In absence of any partition between the widow of Biswanath and her two sons namely Jagannath and Bhagaban, such adjustment is not possible. The contesting defendants-appellants having purchased 1-1/2 decimals from out of the suit property from other co-sharer, the courts below could not have declared title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Sri Pati submitted that only a joint possession could be declared pending partition of the property. 7. From the pleadings of the parties the following are found to be the facts which remain undisputed. The disputed plot originally belonged to one Bhagat Dalai and after his death his son Biswanath Dalai succeeded the property. Said Biswanath Dalai also expired and his sons namely Jagannath and Bhagaban succeeded to the property. However, Biswanath at the time of his death had also left his widow-deceased-defendant No. 11. Plaintiff purchased three decimals of land out of the suit property from the aforesaid two brothers whose ownership over the property cannot be in dispute. Said Biswanath Dalai also expired and his sons namely Jagannath and Bhagaban succeeded to the property. However, Biswanath at the time of his death had also left his widow-deceased-defendant No. 11. Plaintiff purchased three decimals of land out of the suit property from the aforesaid two brothers whose ownership over the property cannot be in dispute. Both the Courts have found that Biswanath died in the year 1952 leaving behind his widow-defendant No. 11 and two sons namely Jagannath and Bhagaban. In the year 1952 defendant No. 11 only had a limited interest over the property left by her husband. However, the entire property having been sold by both the brothers in favour of defendant No. 12 in the year 1973, it can only be confined to the share of two brothers, i.e. 2/3rd property left by Biswanath. By that time the widow had also right to claim share to the extent of 1/3rd from the suit property. The total suit property comprises of Ac. 0.06 decimals. The property which fell to the share of Jagannath and Bhagaban being 2/3rd of the total properties comes to four decimals. However, both the brothers sold the entire property to defendant No. 12. Therefore, the title of the defendant No. 12 can only extend to Ac. 0.04 decimals out of Ac, 0.06 decimals purchased by him. The plaintiff having purchased Ac. 0.03 decimals out of Ac. 0.04 decimals from the defendant No. 12, it is well within the 2/3rd share of Jagannath and Bhagaban which they could validly transfer in favour of defendant No. 12. Shri Pati, further submitted that out of the entire suit property of Ac. 0.06 decimals the defendant No. 12 sold Ac. 0.03 decimals to the plaintiff and rest Ac. 0.03 decimals to another person who is not a party to the suit. Such submission has no bearing in the present case as the suit is confirmed to the parties therein and the other persons who purchased Ac. 0.03 decimals from defendant No. 12 have not come up with any grievance. Both the Courts below having concurrently hold that the sale-deed (Ext. 2) executed by Jagannath and Bhagaban in favour of defendant No. 12 is not a fraudulent one, I have no scope to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. 8. Now coming to the question with regard to Ext. Both the Courts below having concurrently hold that the sale-deed (Ext. 2) executed by Jagannath and Bhagaban in favour of defendant No. 12 is not a fraudulent one, I have no scope to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. 8. Now coming to the question with regard to Ext. A that the sale-deed executed in favour of the appellants by the defendants 7, 9, 10, it is found that the defendants 7, 9 and 10 are daughters of deceased Biswanath who died in the year 1952 and as such these defendants had no right to the property left by their father. Lower appellate Court on consideration of evidence on record held that at the time of execution of Ext. A both Jagannath and Bhagaban were alive but neither they signed the sale-deed not their consent was taken. Case of the contesting defendants that Ext. A was executed because Jagannath and Bhagaban could not pay back loan, was also disbelieved by the lower appellate Court and on the above ground the lower appellate Court was of the view that the Ext. A had been obtained fraudulently. Though Sri Pati challenged the said finding the lower appellate Court to be without any basis, I am of the view that even if the property purchased by the appellants is held to be valid one there shall be no difficulty in adjusting the same as the plaintiff has purchased only Ac. 0.03 decimals out of Ac. 0.06 decimals and the appellants have purchased Ac. 0.1/2 decimals out of Ac. 0.03 decimals. Possession over the suit land by the plaintiff having been found by both the Courts below concurrently, I am of the view that the land purchased by the plaintiff from out to the suit plit is under his possession and the defendants-appellants have no right to interfere in his possession. 9. In view of the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed