In a suit for recovery of property by an unsuccessful party in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C., filed within three years from the date of the final order, proof of title is not incumbent on the plaintiff.

R. K. DAS, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

( 2 ) THE dispute relates to 1. 73 acres of agricultural land locally known as Chabrikuti in village Bisipada in the district of Phulbani. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the land originally formed part of the bed of a tank which gradually silted up and was lying fallow for some time when the villagers of Bisipada including the plaintiffs and their ancestors reclaimed it and made it fit for cultivation. They claimed to have been in possession of the said land for the last thirty years, utilising its usufruct for their village deity Sri Ramachandra Mahaprabhu. The plaintiffs filed the suit both in their personal capacity as well as in their representative capacity representing the entire body of villagers of Bisipada, their case being that the defendants having no manner of title or possession were creating disturbance in the possession of the plaintiffs. There was a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. , in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Phulbani, between the defendant-appellants and some others as the first party and the plaintiff-1 (respondent-1) along with others as the second party. The Magistrate by his order dated 9-12-53 declared possession in favour of the defendants who were to retain the same until they were evicted in due course of law. Plaintiffs have therefore filed the present suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit land from the defendants.

( 3 ) THE defence case in brief is that the land in question forms part of plot No. 13 of their village Mandlapadar and it is not in village Bisipada, the village of the plaintiffs. It forms part of a vast tract called Rangukuti of which the defendants are in possession from time immemorial.

( 4 ) BOTH parties adduced oral evidence and produced certain documents in support of their respective cases. The Courts below accepted the plaintiff's version that the suit land forms part of village Bisipada and the plaintiffs were in possession of the same. They negatived the defence contention that, it forms part of plot No. 13 of village Mandiapadar. They declared that the plaintiffs have their possessory title to the suit-land and directed recovery of posses- sion of the same. Hence the appeal by defendants.

( 5 ) MR. Y. S. N. Murty, learned counsel for the appellants, mainly relied upon three documents, in support of the defence case. They are Exts. T. L. G. and M. Ext. T is a certified copy of the order dated 5-4-57 in Revenue Miscellaneous Assignment case No. 70/56. This proceeding seems to have been started at the instance of one of the villagers of Mandiapadar the village of the defendants, for assignment of the said land to him. In course of that proceeding though the claim of the defendants was rejected the revenue officer held that the said land formed part of plot No. 13. This document was relied upon to show that the suit-land forms part of plot No. 13 of Mandiapadar village and does not form part of the village of the plaintiffs, that is, Bisipada. Exts. G. L. and M. are the certified copies of the affidavits filed on behalf of the plaintiff-1 in the aforesaid Section 145 proceeding wherein it was alleged that the plaintiffs' witnesses made some admissions supporting the case of the defendants.

( 6 ) AS to the evidentiary value of these documents the Courts below have dealt with it at great length. On an analysis of the evidence, they have held that the disputed land was unsurveyed and it does not form part of plot No. 13 of mandiapadar village as claimed by the defendant. It is open to the Civil Court to assess the evidence and come to its own conclusion contrary to that arrived at by the Revenue Authorities. Exts. L. G. and M. are some of the affidavits filed on behalf of the present plaintiffs in the proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. It was submitted that the plaintiffs' witnesses