JUDGMENT : DR. A.K.RATH, J. 1. This is a plaintiff’s appeal against confirming judgment. The suit was for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that his father had purchased the suit land from Bhagaban Naik, father of defendant no. 1 for a consideration of Rs.80.00 on 11.5.1963 by means of an unregistered sale deed. He possessed the said land and raised crops. The suit land was recorded in the name of defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the R.O.R. of the year 1977. Thereafter he approached defendant no.1 to regularize the sale by executing a registered sale deed. Defendant no.1 demanded exorbitant amount. While the matter stood thus, defendant no.1 had executed the sale deed on 9.8.1983 and deed of rectification of those sale deeds dated 2.4.1984 in favour of defendant nos. 5 to 8 in respect of the suit land and delivered possession to the vendees. Thereafter defendant nos. 5 to 8 forcibly dispossessed him. It was further pleaded that they have acquired title by way of adverse possession. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra. 3. The defendants filed a joint written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that Bhagaban Naik was owner of the suit land. After his death, his son, defendant no.1 was in possession of the land. After delivery of possession, defendants 5 to 8 are in peaceful possession of the land. The land was recorded in their names in the R.O.R. published on 2.6.1977. The petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 36 A of the Orissa Land Records Act (“O.L.R.Act”) was rejected on 1.12.1978 in O.L.R. Case No.19 of 1977. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed six issues. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their case. The learned trial court came to hold that evidence with regard to possession of the land by the plaintiff do not inspire confidence. He has not acquired any title by virtue of an unregistered sale deed, vide Ext.1. Defendant no.1 was in possession of the suit land. He sold the same to defendant nos.5 to 8 by means of a registered sale deed in the year 1984. Held so, it dismissed the suit. He has not acquired any title by virtue of an unregistered sale deed, vide Ext.1. Defendant no.1 was in possession of the suit land. He sold the same to defendant nos.5 to 8 by means of a registered sale deed in the year 1984. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned District Judge, Sundargarh in Title Appeal No.17 of 1986, which was eventually dismissed. 5. The appeal was admitted on 20.4.1988 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether Ext.1 could be described as sale deed and whether Ext.G could be relied upon in the absence of the original application under Section 36-A of the O.L.R. Act to prove claim of bhag tenancy of the plaintiff ?” 6. Heard Mr.B.Sahoo, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr.U.C.Pattnaik, learned Advocate for Respondents 6(a) to 6 (c). 7. Mr.Sahoo, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that father of the plaintiff purchased the suit land from Bhagban Naik, father of defendant no.1 for a consideration of Rs.80.00. by means of an unregistered sale deed, Ext.1. The sale deed was not compulsorily registriable. After execution of sale deed, father of the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. Thereafter the plaintiff is in possession of the land. The learned courts below committed a manifest illegality and impropriety in dismissing the suit. 8. Per contra, Mr.U.C.Pattnaik, learned Advocate Respondents 6(a) to 6 (c) submitted that father of the defendant no.1 sold the suit land to the father of the plaintiff for a valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession. Defendants are the absolute owners in possession of the suit property. 9. On a conspectus of the deed, vide Ext.1, it is evident that mouza of the suit land had been described. It simply postulates that father of the plaintiff had taken an amount of Rs.80.00 from the father of defendant no.1 and thereafter handed over possession. There is no recital that defendant no.1 sold the suit land to the plaintiff. By no stretch of imagination, it can be held that Ext.1 is a sale deed. Both the courts below, on an analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings, dismissed the suit. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. There is no recital that defendant no.1 sold the suit land to the plaintiff. By no stretch of imagination, it can be held that Ext.1 is a sale deed. Both the courts below, on an analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings, dismissed the suit. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. Since the substantial question of law no.1 is answered in negative, the substantial question of law no.2 does not require any consideration. 10. Resultantly, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.