In a dispute over title and possession of land, the court will consider evidence of title, possession, and any relevant circumstances to determine the rights of the parties. Findings of a Criminal Court in a reference u/s 146(1), Code of Criminal Procedure are not binding on the Civil Court, but can be considered as evidence along with other evidence in the case.

JUDGMENT :

B.N. Misra, J. - This second appeal was filed by the late Raghab Padhan who was Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 in the Court below. He died during the pendency of this appeal and his widow Pitei Bewa and his two sons, namely, Prahallad Padhan and Sudam Charan Padhan have been substituted in his place as Appellants 1/a to 1/c respectively. Respondent No. 1-Sadasib Champati also having died during the pendency of this appeal, has been substituted by his two widows, mother and three daughters as Respondents 1/a to 1/f respectively as his legal heirs. Respondents 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were Defendants 2, 4, 5, 6 and 3 respectively in the trial Court. The Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title over the disputed properties and for recovery of possession thereof on eviction of Defendants 1 and 2. His suit was decreed. Defendants 1 and 2 came up in appeal before the learned lower appellate Court. Their appeal having been allowed on contest against Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 and ex parte against the other Respondents, the Plaintiff had come up in second appeal to this Court.

2. The Plaintiffs case may be briefly stated. The subject matter of dispute relates to A.0.14 decimals of land in the middle portion out of A.0.79 decimals of land of plot No. 4829 under Khata No. 108 of village Baunsiapada, Nayagarh. The suit plot was recorded in the name of Gopi Baliarsingh, father of Defendants 3 to 6. After his death the property came to the possession of the aforesaid Defendants. In an amicable division between them, Defendant No. 6 received the eastern 1/3rd, Defendant No. 5 received the middle 1/3rd and Defendants 3 and 4 received the western 1/3rd of plot No. 4829 and they remained in separate possession of their respective portions. On 29-3-1963, Defendants 5 and 6 executed a registered deed of sale in favour of the sons of the Plaintiff in respect of A.0.39 decimals of land on the eastern side of plot No. 4829, Defendant No. 6 alienating A.0.26 decimals to the east of the plot being his 1/3rd share and Defendant No. 5 alienating A.0.13 decimals in the middle of the plot being i of his share. Since the date of their purchase the Plaintiff and his sons remained in possession of the A.0.39 decimals of land. Some time thereafter Defendant No. 6 wanted to dispose of A.0.17 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 3064/5587 in favour of Defendants 1 and 2 and he wanted that Defendants 3 to 5 should give their consent to the proposed sale. On 26-4-1966 Defendant No. 6 executed a sale deed in favour of Defendants 1 and 2 in respect of A.014 decimals of land appertaining to plot No 4829, which forms the subject matter of the present dispute, instead of the land appertaining to plot No. 3064/5587 which he had actually wanted to sell. Defendants 3 to 5 unwittingly and in good faith give their consent to the aforesaid sale deed dated 26-4-1966 believing that the sale was in respect of plot No. 3064/5587. Soon thereafter Defendants 3 to 5 came to know that fraud had been committed upon them and hence they confronted Defendant No. 6. The latter handed over the registration receipt to Defendants 3 to 5 instead of giving the same to Defendant No. 1 in whose favour it had been endorsed. On 18-5-1966 Defendant No. 5 sold the disputed land in favour of the Plaintiff by a registered deed of sale for a consideration of Rs. 1000/-. Defendants 3 and 4 had also joined in the sale deed as co-vendors. After purchase the Plaintiff remained in possession of the land purchased by him from Defendant No. 5. It is alleged that Defendants 1 and 2 prevailed upon Defendant No. 6 to give them another registration receipt on the strength of which they managed to obtain the original sale deed from the Sub-Registrar's office. However the Plaintiff who was in possession of the disputed land raised paddy thereon in the year 1966, but Defendants 1 and 2 stealthily removed the crops. The Plaintiff filed a criminal case against Defendants 1 and 2, but the latter was a