JUDGMENT

Dr. A.K. RATH, J. - This is a defendant’s appeal against reversing judgment.

2. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 instituted the suit for declaration of title over the suit land and for declaration that the patta, if any, issued in favour of the defendants is null and void. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit land originally belonged to the ex-zamindar of Badagada estate. He had given the land to the Math Head of Marikote for management. Marikote Math allotted the land to the ancestor of the plaintiff for enjoyment of the same in lieu of the service to the deity Sri Patakhanda Mohaprabhu Bije Marikote. The plaintiff used to provide vegetables out of the income of the property on the date of Dussehara and obtained receipts. The receipts were burnt in the fire. Defendants had no semblance of right, title and interest over the suit land. In the year 1982, the plaintiff applied for mutation of the land in his favour. The defendants resisted the same. The case was dismissed. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs supra.

3. The defendants entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to the defendants, the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit land. They are the owners of the suit land. The Math Head of Marikote had not allotted the suit land to the ancestor of the plaintiff for offering bhog to the deity.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court struck three issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the plaintiff had no title over the suit land. Felt aggrieved, the plaintiff filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Berhampur, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Berhampur and renumbered as Title Appeal No. 77/88 (T.A. No. 89/86 G.D.C.). Learned appellate Court came to hold that the Math Head had granted Adhikar Patra, Ext. 1, on 1.3.30 to Andha Naik, ancestor of plaintiff. The father of the defendant was an attesting witness. The Management Committee of the deity recognized the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land on 2.10.74. Ext. 1 is a thirty years old document. Held so, it allowed the appeal.

5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in Ground Nos. 1, 3 and 5 of the appeal memo. The same are-

“1. Whether execution of documents can be accepted when the signatures therein are stoutly denied only on the ground that the document is 30 years old.

3. Whether the plaintiff can be permitted to rely upon facts not pleaded in the plaint.

5. Whether the appellate Court can reverse the finding regarding possession without displacing the reasons given by the Original Court.”

6. Heard Mr. Bhubanananda Mishra, learned Advocate, on behalf of Mr. S.N. Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellants and Ms. Jyotsnamayee Sahoo, learned Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent.

7. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no material on record that the property originally belonged to Marikote Math. No title passed by virtue of Adhikar patra, Ext. 1. The mutation case filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

8. Per Contra, Ms. Sahoo, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the property originally belonged to Marikote Math. The Math Head granted Adhikar Patra, Ext. 1 to the ancestor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in possession of the same since the time of his ancestor. She further submitted that Ext. 1 is a thirty years old document. The same is presumed to be correct. Learned appellate Court, on a threadbare analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings, allowed the appeal. There is no perversity in the findings of the learned Court below.

9. There is no material on record that the property originally belonged to Marikote Math.