The presumption of correctness attached to settlement entries until proven incorrect, and the requirement for credible evidence to challenge the correctness of the entries.

A. K. PARICHHA, J.

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Kalahandi in T. A. No. 59 of 1982 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna in T. S. No. 13 of 1981, the appellants have filed this appeal.

( 2 ) APPELLANTS 1 to 5 and Late Ghasiram Singh, father of appellant Nos. 6 and 7 as plaintiffs, filed the aforesaid suit asking for partition of the suit property described in the schedule of the plaint. The case of the plaintiffs in brief, was that one Ram Singh Beldar, the common ancestor of the parties, had acquired Ac. 38. 07 dec. of land including the suit land. On the death of Ram Singh Beldar, his sons Soman Singh Beldar, Rain Singh Beldar and Anjan Singh Beldar remained in joint mess and properties and possessed all the lands of Ram Singh although in the settlement of 1922-23 the said lands were recorded in the names of Soman Singh Beldar and Rain Singh Beldar only as Anjan Singh Beldar was a minor at that time. However during the last settlement held in 1947, taking advantage of the death of Soman Singh Beldar and Rain Singh Beldar and the minor-hood of the plaintiffs, the youngest son Anjan Singh Beldar managed to get the suit land recorded in his name. In spite of such recording of the suit land in the name of Anjan Singh Beldar alone, the parties continued to enjoy the suit property jointly as the property was still joint. On 16. 12. 1980, Anjan Singh Beldar died survived by his widow and three daughters (defendants 1 to 4 respectively ). After the death of Anjan Singh Beldar, these defendants 1 to 4 claimed the entire suit property as their own and refused to give any share in the same to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore filed the suit for partition asking for 2/3rd share in the same.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS, who are the respondents in the present appeal filed their written statement denying the plaint allegations, pleading, inter alia, that Ram Singh never acquired the suit land, rather, whatever lands he had left, were surrendered or sold by Soman Singh Beldar and Rain Singh Beldar. They claimed that the suit land was acquired by Anjan Singh Beldar and he was the absolute owner in possession of that property and so on his death, they (defendants 1 to 4), as legal heirs of Anjan Singh Beldar, possessed and enjoyed the property as exclusive owner thereof and those lands were also mutated in their names by the Tahasildar, Dharamgarh in spite of objection of the plaintiffs. Defendants, thus, asserted that the suit land is never a joint family property and is not liable for partition and the plaintiffs have no share in the same.

( 4 ) PLAINTIFFS examined five witnesses and defendants examined one witness. The parties also filed documents in support of their respective claim.

( 5 ) LEARNED trial Court framed six issues and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, decided all the issues in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit on contest. The present appellants filed an appeal bearing T. A. No. 59 of 1982 in the Court of learned District Judge, Kalahandi, basically assailing the findings of the trial Court on issue Nos. 1 to 3. Learned District Judge after considering the submissions of the parties and reassessing the evidence on record, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by those orders of the Courts below, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

( 6 ) TAKING note of the plea of the appellants that in the R. O. R. , Ext. 1, the disputed property has been recorded as joint family property and in Ext. 2, the subsequent R. O. R. , the same property has been indicated as property of the defendants to the exclusion of the plaintiff, the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration in this appeal. Whether the presumption available to the record-of-rights of 1922 would have no force in the face of the presumption to the record-of-rights of 1947 (Ext. 2)