JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. Defendant no.1 is the appellant in an affirming judgment. 2. Respondent no.1 as plaintiff instituted T.S. No.19/101 of 1989 in the court of the learned Munsif, Sundargarh for declaration of right, title and interest over ‘B’ schedule land, declaration that the gift deed and rectification deed executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 is null and void and recovery of possession. The case of the plaintiff is that one Mahidar Joshi was the owner of a land appertaining to hal khata no.321, hal plot no.362, area Ac.0.060 dec. of Sundargarh town. After his death, his widow, Sindhu Kumari Joshi, defendant no.2, became the absolute owner of the land. She was the only legal heir. To press her legal necessity, she alienated the land to the plaintiff by means of registered sale deed dated 10.4.1989 for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- and delivered possession. Thus the plaintiff became the rightful owner of the suit plot. The defendant no.1, who is a relation of defendant no.2, forcibly removed the fence and encroached upon an area of Ac.0.020 dec. of land. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant no.1 had forcibly obtained one gift deed bearing no.932 dated 2.6.1989 from defendant no.2. Defendant no.1 threatened the defendant no.2 for executing a rectification deed by stating that she had only alienated area Ac.0.040 dec. of land to the plaintiff and not Ac.0.060 dec. under pressure. The defendant no.1 had also executed the rectification deed on 31.5.1989. With the factual scenario, the suit has been filed. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant no.1 entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to him, Mahidar Joshi became ill after his retirement. He volunteered to take care of his illness. Mahidar was issueless. He gifted the suit land to him in the year 1976 and delivered possession. He is in possession of the land and constructed two rooms over the same. He denied execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by defendant no.2. His further case is that he is in possession of the suit land prior to gift deed. Defendant no.2 entered appearance and filed written statement supporting the stand of the plaintiff. She admitted that she sold an area of Ac.0.060 dec. of land to the plaintiff for a valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession. His further case is that he is in possession of the suit land prior to gift deed. Defendant no.2 entered appearance and filed written statement supporting the stand of the plaintiff. She admitted that she sold an area of Ac.0.060 dec. of land to the plaintiff for a valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession. The defendant no.1 threatened her to execute a gift deed in his favour for an area of Ac.0.020 dec. out of ‘A’ schedule land. Defendant no.1 had also forced her to execute a rectification deed. Defendant no.3 also filed written statement. According to him, Mahidar Joshi was the absolute owner of the suit property. He is the sister’s son of Mahidar Joshi. He was staying in the house of Mahidar to lookafter him. His uncle had executed a willnama in his favour in 7.8.1982. Defendant no.2 had no legal necessity to alienate the land in favour of the plaintiff. No consideration was paid by the plaintiff. There was no delivery of possession. When the defendant no.2 realised her mistake, she executed a rectification deed and gift deed in favour of defendant no.1 on 31.5.1989. Defendant no.1 had performed the obsequies of Mahidar. Defendant no.2 executed a registered gift deed in favour of defendant no.1 for the service rendered by him to Mahidar. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined three witnesses and on his behalf five documents had been exhibited. The defendant nos.1 and 3 had examined seven witnesses and on their behalf two documents had been exhibited. Defendant no.2 had examined as D.W.1. 5. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff had purchased the suit land along with other land from defendant no.2 vide Ext.2 for a valid consideration. Possession of the suit land was duly delivered by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 has no title over the suit land. The gift deed executed in favour of defendant no.1 had not been executed to regularize the gift of 1976. Held so, learned trial court declared the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land and decreed the suit. The defendant no.1 unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree of learned trial court before the learned District Judge, Sundargarh in T.A. No.9 of 1994, which was eventually dismissed. 6. Held so, learned trial court declared the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land and decreed the suit. The defendant no.1 unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree of learned trial court before the learned District Judge, Sundargarh in T.A. No.9 of 1994, which was eventually dismissed. 6. The second appeal was admitted on 13.2.1998 on the following substantial question of law enumerated in ground nos.2(A), (B) and (C) of the appeal memo. The same are quoted hereunder. “2(A) Whether the Plaintiff-Respondent No.1’s suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 9 C.P.C. when admittedly all the legal representatives of the admitted original owner (Mahidar Joshi) are not parties to the suit, and Defendant-Respondent No.2 is only a part interest holder of the suit properties. (B) Whether the learned Courts below erred in law in ignoring from consideration the effect of the rectification deed (Ext.A/4) where Defendant-Respondent No.2 admitted to have transferred title to the extent of only 40 decimals and not 60 decimals as indicated in the sale deed (Ext.2). (C) Whether the learned Courts below were correct in ignoring the specific case of Defendant-Respondent No.3 that the suit property was willed in his favour by the admitted Original Owner, Mahidar, on 7.8.82 (Para 6 of the Written Statement of Defendant-Respondent No.3) which has a direct bearing on the Plaintiff-Respondent No.1’s case as Defendant-Respondent No.2 could not have sold in 1989 (Ext.2) the property which has been bequeathed in 1982.” 7. Heard Mr. Byomokesh Sahoo, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. N.P. Patnaik, learned Advocate for the respondent no.1. None appears for the respondent nos.2 and 3. 8. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Mahidar Joshi was the absolute owner in possession of the suit land. He was serving in Police Department. He had no issue. After his retirement, he became ill. The defendant no.1, who is the relation of Mahidar Joshi, lookafter him. He had performed the obsequies of Mahidar Joshi. After his death, his widow, defendant no.2, gifted the suit property to defendant no.1 in the year 1976. In 1978, she executed a registered gift deed in favour of defendant no.1. The defendant no.2 realising the mistake committed by her, executed rectification deed on 31.5.1989 in respect of area of Ac.0.040 dec. The defendant no.2 had alienated area of Ac.0.040 dec. In 1978, she executed a registered gift deed in favour of defendant no.1. The defendant no.2 realising the mistake committed by her, executed rectification deed on 31.5.1989 in respect of area of Ac.0.040 dec. The defendant no.2 had alienated area of Ac.0.040 dec. of land to the plaintiff and gifted rest area of Ac.0.020 dec. to the defendant no.1. Thus, the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit land. 9. Per contra, Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, submitted that Mahidar was issueless. After death of Mahidar, his widow, defendant no.2, to press her legal necessity, alienated the suit land including other lands on 10.4.1989 for a valid consideration. She delivered possession of the property to the plaintiff. The defendant no.2 filed a written statement supporting the stand of the plaintiff. She examined as D.W.1 and also reiterated the stand taken in the written statement. The defendant no.1 has no semblance right, title and interest over the suit property. He further submitted that once the defendant no.2 had alienated the entire suit property in favour of the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed, she had no right, title and interest over the same. Thus, she could not execute the gift deed in respect of an area of Ac.0.040 dec. to defendant no.1. Further the plaintiff is not bound by the alleged rectification deed. 10. Mahidar Joshi was the absolute owner in possession of an area of Ac.0.060 dec. appertaining to hal khata no.321, hal plot no.362 of Sundargarh town. He was issueless. After his death, his widow, Sindhu Kumari Joshi, defendant no.2, to press her legal necessity, executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.30,000/-. The registered sale deed shows that possession was duly delivered to the vendee. Defendant no.2 filed a written statement supporting the stand of the plaintiff. She had also examined as D.W.1. Once the defendant no.2 alienated the entire property in favour of the plaintiff, she had no title over the same and as such any gift made in favour of the defendant no.1 cannot confer any title over the property in question. The plea taken by the defendant no.3 is mutually destructive. According to him, Mahidar Joshi had executed a willnanma in favour of the plaintiff. The plea taken by the defendant no.3 is mutually destructive. According to him, Mahidar Joshi had executed a willnanma in favour of the plaintiff. On the other hand, he says that defendant no.2 alienated the suit land in favour of defendant no.1. Reliance placed on rectification deed vide Ext.A/4 is totally misplaced. The plaintiff was not a party to the said rectification deed; moreso, the defendant no.2 in the deposition has stated that she alienated the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. 11. Both the courts below on a threadbare analysis of the evidence on record both oral and documentary and pleadings decreed the suit. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 12. In view of the analysis made above, the inescapable conclusion is that the appeal, sans merits, deserves dismissal and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.