JUDGMENT :

S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiff is the Appellant against a reversing judgment.

2. While admitting the Second Appeal, ground Nos. 1 and 3 of the memorandum of appeal were formulated to raise substantial questions of law to be decided in the second appeal. They read as follows:

1. Whether in view of the admitted fact that the suit lands belonged to Sriram Ho the late father of the Plaintiff-Appellant and in view of the findings of the learned Trial Court that the defence case that Sriram Ha abandoned the suit holding and Mansingh Ho came into forcible possession of the suit lands in 1943 stands disproved by the rent receipts Ext. A series which show that Mansingh was paying of rent as Marfatdar that is as Zamindar or custodian of the property on behalf of Sriram Ho upto 1953 the learned Lower Appellate Court has committed a serious error of law in overlooking the said finding and in drawing a presumption of adverse possession from long possession of the suit lands by the Defendants and placing the onus of proof of permissive possession on the Plaintiff ?

2. xxx xxx xxx

3. Whether the learned lower Appellate Court has committed a serious error of law in reversing the finding of t