The record of right neither creates title nor extinguishes title, and the period of limitation for correction of record of right is three years.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

Defendants are the appellants against a confirming judgment.

2. The respondents as plaintiffs instituted T.S. No.51 of 1978 in the court of the learned, Munsif, Anandapur for declaration of right, title, interest, declaration of the settlement entry made in favour of the defendant nos.1 and 3 as invalid and permanent injunction impleading the appellants as defendants. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land appertaining to C.S. khata no.5 measuring Ac.1.07 dec. of mouza-Sikabeda described in the plaint ‘Ka’ schedule, corresponding to khata no.30 area Ac.0.99 dec. originally belonged to one Sauna Majhi. In the year 1940, Kuanra Majhi, father of plaintiff no.1, purchased the same by way of auction sale. The land was mutated in his favour. He was in possession of the land and used to pay rent. After his death, his three sons, the plaintiffs are in joint possession of the land. The defendants, taking advantage of the wrong entry of their names in the ROR, forcibly entered the suit land on 14.7.1977. They have no semblance of right, title and interest over the same.

3. The defendant nos.1 to 3 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant nos.1 to 3 is that Kanhu Majhi was their common ancestor. He died leaving behind three sons, namely, Jadu, Sauna and Jasmat @ Matal. Jadu died leaving behind his three sons, Kanhu, Kache and Kanda. Kanda died issueless. Kache died leaving behind Gumudi (D.2). Kanhu died leaving behind his four sons, Jadu, Chandu(D.1), Phulrai and Dasarathi (D.3). Phulrai died leaving Kundi (D.5). Sauna died leaving behind his only son Kanhu. Jasmat died issueless. When Jadu, Sauna and Jasmat were living in joint mess, Jasmat died. Jasmat died issueless. Thereafter the suit land, which was their ancestral property, was in possession of Sauna and Jadu. The same was recorded in the name of Sauna Majhi in the hal settlement ROR, while the other lands stood recorded in the name of Jadu and Jasmat. After the death of Sauna’s son Kanhu and Jadu, the suit was jointly possessed by Jadu’s sons Kanhu, Kache, Kanda and Sauna. On the death of Sauna, Kanhu, Kache and Kanda jointly possessed the suit land. After death of Kanhu, Kache, Kanda and Phulrai and the defendants were in possession of the suit land. The further case of the defendant nos.1 to 3 is that one Barial Majhi, who was the grandfather of plaintiff no.1, happened to be the brother of Sauna Majhi. Phulrai Majhi, son of Sauna Majhi was the ‘Pradhan’ of Sikabeda mouza under whom Kuanar Majhi, the father of the plaintiff no.1 was acting as a Kothia. Kuanar Majhi with the help of the Pradhan Phulrai Majhi fraudulently got the suit land with other lands measuring Ac.15.81 dec. for Rs.6/-in an auction sale in the year 1939-40. Thereafter, Kuanar Majhi got the suit land recorded in his favour. He was not in possession of the suit land. The suit land is all along in the possession of the defendants.

4. The defendant no.4 also filed a written statement. He died issueless during pendency of the suit. G.A.L. was appointed for defendant no.5, who was a minor. A written statement was filed by him denying the assertions made in the plaint.

5. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court came to hold that plaintiffs have right, title and interest and possession over the suit land. Held so, it decreed the suit. The unsuccessful defendants challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned Subordinate Judge, Anandapur in T.A. No.7 of 1980, which was eventually dismissed.

6. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos.2 and 3 of the memorandum of appeal.

“2. Whether the plaintiff-respondents’ suit is barred under Section 42 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act?

3. Whether a specific issue as to whet