The judgment established the principle of res judicata and discussed the validity of orders and the concept of void and voidable decisions.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

The plaintiff no. 2 is the appellant against a confirming judgment.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land was the ancestral property recorded in the name of their father. Their father permitted one Tanu Bewa to remain in possession over the suit land. She constructed a house over the suit land and gave a written undertaking that neither she nor her legal heir would claim to the property after her death. After the death of Tanu Bewa, the defendant was in possession of the suit land. A meeting was held in the Panchayat Office of Kaintragarh. In the Panchayat faisalanama dated 9.10.1992, the defendant agreed to vacate the suit land, but did not comply with the same. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession over the suit land.

3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendant entered appearance and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant is that the suit land was “Boxix zagir land”. The S.D.O., Athmallik in pursuance of notification dated 4.11.1969 settled the land in favour of Tanu Bewa vide Misc. Case No.16/70 dated 7.5.1972. After settlement of the land in her favour, she was in possession of the same. The plaintiffs instituted T.S No.11/76 in the court of the learned Addl. Munsif, Athmallik for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession of the suit land against Tanu Bewa, S.D.O., Athmallik and others.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed six issues out of which, issue nos.4 and 6 are pivotal, which are quoted hereunder;

“(iv) Has the defendant right, title and possession over the suit land ?

(vi) Have the plaintiffs got any right, title and interest over the suit land ?”

5. To prove the case, the plaintiffs had examined four witnesses and on their behalf three documents had been exhibited. The defendant had examined two witnesses and on his behalf two documents had been exhibited.

6. On an anatomy of pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary, learned trial court came to hold that the suit land is “Boxix zagir land”. The S.D.O., Athmallik has settled the land in favour of defendant no.1. It further held that the Chuktinama is not a registered document. Much prior to same, the land was settled in favour of Tanu Bewa. She became the absolute owner of land after settlement. The defendant has right, title and interest over the suit land. Held so, learned trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree in Title Appeal No.17 of 2000 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Athmallik, which was eventually dismissed.

7. Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the suit land is an ancestral property of the plaintiffs. The same was recorded in the name of their father. They were paying rent regularly. The father of the plaintiffs permitted one Tanu Bewa to possess the land. Tanu Bewa constructed a house over the suit land and gave an undertaking on 15.5.1966 that neither she nor her legal heirs would claim the property after her death. The said agreement was rectified on 7.3.1992 vide Ext.2. After death of Tanu Bewa, the defendant possessed the land illegally. A meeting was held in the Panchayat Office. In the Panchayat faisalanama dated 9.10.1992, the defendant agreed to vacate the land but did not vacate the same. He further submits that the defendant is no way related to Tanu Bewa and remained unauthorised possession over the suit land. Both the courts below committed an illegality in not discussing the evidence in its proper perspective.

8. The submission of Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the appellant, is difficult to fathom. The suit land was “Boxix zagir land”. The S.D.O., Athmallik in pursuance of notification dated 4.11.1969 settled the land in favour of Tanu Bewa vide Misc. Case No.16/70 on 7.5.1972. Tanu Bewa was