The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the source of title and the validity of property acquisition, highlighting the significance of valid documentation and legal requirements for property transactions.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

1. Defendant nos. 1 and 5 are the appellants against a confirming judgment.

2. Plaintiffs-respondent nos. 1 to 4 as well as the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos. 5 to 10 instituted the suit for declaration of title over schedule ‘A’ land, confirmation of possession, recovery of possession, in the event they are dispossessed during pendency of the suit, permanent injunction and damages. The following genealogy would show the relationship of the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 and defendant nos. 1 and 2.

		Binayak Mishra
Nilakantha			Sankara
Baidyanath			Bata = Moti
Punananda (P-1)	Daitari Laxman		Madan	Rukmani (D-1)	Janjali (D-2)
Banchanidhi				Daitari	Kangali
Narendra

3. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land was recorded in the names of Rukmani and Janjali in the C.S.R.O.R. T.S. No. 13/556 of 1930/1928 was instituted by Punananda Mishra and Daitari Mishra against Rukmani and Janjali and others. The suit was decreed on compromise. In the said decree, Punananda and Daitari got the suit properties along with other property. Rukmani and Kangali died. Kangali predeceased Janjali. Janjali approached Punananda and Laxman S/o Daitari to sell the land for maintenance. Punananda and Laxman sold the suit land along with Ac. 0.05 dec. of land appertaining to plot no. 942, khata no. 73 of village Goundasahi to Janjali for a consideration of Rs. 50/- by means of a registered sale deed dated 18.7.44 and delivered possession to her. Thereafter Janjali constructed a house over Ac. 0.05 dec. of land. She was in possession of the rest Ac. 0.25 dec. of land. After death of Janjali, her husband’s sister’s sons, namely, Kunja and Trailokya succeeded to the properties. While matter stood thus, Trailokya and Kunja sold the suit land along with the homestead to Gananath Samal, father of plaintiff no. 1, Punananda Mishra, Laxman Mishra, Hrusikesh Samal, father of plaintiff nos. 2 to 4 and Biswambar Samal, father of defendant no. 2 on 16.4.52 for a consideration of Rs. 700/- and delivered possession to the vendees. Father of the plaintiff no. 1 and father of plaintiff nos. 2 to 4 were in possession of Ac. 0.10 dec. of land. Ac. 0.10 dec. of land was in possession of Punananda and Laxman. Ac. 0.05 dec. of land was in possession of father of defendant no. 2. On 15.4.61, Laxman, son of Daitari and Narendra, son of Banchanidhi, sold Ac. 0.10 dec. of land to plaintiff nos. 1 and 5 for a valid consideration and delivered possession. Plaintiffs became the owner of Ac. 0.20 dec. of land out of the suit land. Father of defendant no. 2 sold Ac. 0.05 dec. of land to the plaintiffs. It was an oral transaction. Plaintiff no. 5 purchased Ac. 0.23-5 kadi from Punananda on 18.1.52. Father of plaintiff no. 1 purchased Ac. 0.23 dec. of land from Laxman from the suit plot no. 240 on 10.6.49. By that process, they had purchased the entire suit land. They are in possession of the same. The defendants have no semblance of right, title and interest over the same. On the instruction of defendant no. 1, some tress-passers entered into the suit land on 4.5.85, cut and removed the paddy crops. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

4. Defendant no. 1 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendant no. 1 was that Punananda and Daitari are no way related to Rukmani and Janjali. Daitari never succeeded to the suit land. The decree obtained in T.S. No. 13/556 of 1930/1928 was illegal and fraudulent. Krishnapriya is not the sister of Kangali. She is a fictitious lady. Janjali was the absolute owner of the suit land. Janjali died issueless. Her husband predeceased her. Krushna Satpathy was the son of Kangali’s brother. After death of Janjali, Krushna Satpathy succeeded to the property. He was in posses