JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. Defendants are the appellants against an affirming judgment. 2. Respondent as plaintiff instituted T.S. No. 67 of 1987 in the court of the learned Munsif, Khurda for permanent injunction impleading the appellants as defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property appertains to Hal Khata No. 656, plot No. 2294-Ac.0.225 dec. of mouza-Jajarsingh belonged to Dinabandhu Mishra. Dinabandhu purchased the same in a certificate of sale and was all along in possession thereof. The land was mutated in his name under Khata No. 660/1. Out of the total Ac.0.225 dec., he sold away Ac.0.072 dec. to the plaintiff by means of sale deed dated 29.01.1979 for a valid consideration & delivered possession. The plaintiff mutated the same in his name. While matter stood thus, Dinabandhu sold away the northern side of Ac.0.072 dec. out of the total area Ac.0.225 to one Radhaballav Das for consideration and delivered possession. Radhaballav Das mutated that property in his name. The same was recorded in his name under a separate plot No. 2294/3138. On 27.04.1981, Radhaballav Das sold away that Ac.0.072 dec. appertaining to plot No. 2294/3138 to the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed for a valid consideration and delivered possession thereof to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff became the owner and in possession of entire Ac.0.144 dec., appertaining to Khata No. 648/173. The plaintiff constructed his residential house over the same after taking permission from Bhubaneswar Improvement Trust as well as N.A.C., Khurda. He and his family members are residing in that house. He was paying rent and holding tax in respect to that house. He is a Government servant for which he is to remain outside from Khurda. Taking advantage of his absence, defendant no.2 and 3 demolished his western boundary wall and threatened to encroach a portion of the suit property and to dispossess him from over the same. With this factual scenario, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and 10 to 13 entered appearance and filed their written statement denying assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that they are Harijans by caste. The suit property is their ancestral property. The vendor of the plaintiff purchased the same without permission of the competent authority. Thus the plaintiff cannot claim any title over the suit property. The case of the defendants is that they are Harijans by caste. The suit property is their ancestral property. The vendor of the plaintiff purchased the same without permission of the competent authority. Thus the plaintiff cannot claim any title over the suit property. Neither the vendor of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff himself was/is in possession over the suit property. The sale is in void. They are possessing the suit property. Their residential house stands over the same. The defendant nos.8 & 9 were set ex parte. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck eight issues. Both the parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court came to hold that the sale deeds filed Ext.1, 4 & 6 are genuine and by virtue of the sale deeds the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land. It further held that the defendants have no right, title, interest or possession over the suit land. The defendants unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned Subordinate Judge, Khurda in T.A. No.06 of 1989, which was eventually dismissed. 5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law enumerated in the ground no.2 (a), (b) and (c) of the appeal memo. The same are:- “(a) Whether the defendant-appellants are required to prove their interest in the suit property when it has been found that the plaintiff-respondent has failed to prove his source of title ? (b) Whether the acquisition by Dinabandhu of the suit property without permission under the O.L.R. Act and his subsequent transfers in favour of the plaintiff-respondent can by valid when the defendant-appellants are admittedly Harijans and the plaintiff-respondent claims to be in occupation over their lands ? (c) Whether the plaintiff-respondent’s suit for injunction simplicitor is maintainable without prayer for declaration of title when title is in dispute ?” 6. Heard Mr. Tapas Ranjan Mohanty, learned advocate on behalf of Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Debasis Pattnaik, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate for the appellants submits that the plaintiff has failed to prove the source of the title. Vendors of Dinabandhu Mishra were scheduled tribes. Dinabandhu Mishra has not taken any prior permission from the competent authority before sale under the provision of Orissa Land Reforms Act. Debasis Pattnaik, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate for the appellants submits that the plaintiff has failed to prove the source of the title. Vendors of Dinabandhu Mishra were scheduled tribes. Dinabandhu Mishra has not taken any prior permission from the competent authority before sale under the provision of Orissa Land Reforms Act. Sale deed is void. Subsequent alienation by Dinabandhu cannot convey the title and interest over the suit property on the plaintiff. He further submits that simple suit for permanent injunction simplicitor is not maintainable in the absence of any declaratory relief. 8. The submission of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants is difficult to fathom. On a threadbare analysis of evidence on record as well as pleadings, the learned trial court came to hold that the suit properties have been purchased by the plaintiff from Dinabandhu Mishra and Radhaballav Das by means of registered sale deeds dated 29.01.1979 and 27.04.1981 vide Exts.6 and 4 respectively. The same have been duly proved by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has acquired title. He is in possession of the suit property. The defendants failed to discharge the onus. D.W.1 in his evidence stated that he has no documents to show that he was the owner in possession of the suit land. He could not say the holding number and ward number of his residential house. He could not show any document that he was paying holding tax of the building. Learned appellate court affirmed the findings of the learned trial court. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 9. In the wake of aforesaid, the second appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.