- (1.)PLAINTIFF sued for declaration of title for the disputed property and having lost in the original Court as also in the Court of appeal had carried Second Appeal no. 4 of 1972 to this Court. Our learned brother Acharya, J. , also found against the plaintiff but having granted leave to appeal to a Division Bench, this appeal has been filed.
(2.)THE second defendant obtained a money decree against the plaintiff and levied execution of the decree in execution case No. 239 of 1957. The disputed property of the plaintiff was attached and ultimately sold by the Court on 15-41968. Defendant No. 1 purchased the same in Court auction and the sale in his favour was confirmed on 20th of June. 1968, there having been no objection raised to the sale. Admittedly the plaintiff is a member of the Scheduled Tribes while defendant No. 1 is not. Plaintiff filed the suit on the basis that the sale was in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 22 (3) of the Orissa land Reforms Act of 1960 and was, therefore, void, invalid and inoperative and did not confer on defendant No. 1 any title.
(3.)BOTH the defendants filed a joint written statement and claimed that the provisions of Section 22 (3) of the Orissa Land 'reforms Act must be deemed to have been complied with when the Court sold the property in favour of defendant No. 1; the sale in favour of defendant No. 1 is not void and invalid in law and, therefore, plaintiff as judgment-debtor having not taken appropriate steps in the execution proceeding is not entitled to file this suit for the relief claimed.