JUDGMENT

A.K. Rath, J. - This is a plaintiffs' appeal against affirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

2. Case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land originally belonged to one Mirza family. After partition, the suit land fell to the share of Mirza Usuf Beg. During 1927-28 settlement, the suit land was recorded in the name of the Government under Anabadi Khata. Since the suit land was lying vacant, their father Jogo Sahoo used to grow crops. Jogo Sahoo approached the landlord to lease out the suit land in his favour. The suit land was leased out in his favour by an unregistered lease deed on 9.1.1944 on payment of salami of Rs. 50/. He was in possession of the suit land till his death. He was the settled raiyat of the village. He became occupancy tenant. In the year 1963, zamabandi was filed by the ex-landlord in favour of Jogo Sahoo, whereafter tenancy ledger was opened in his name. After his death, the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and as such, perfected title.

3. The plaintiffs used to pay rent. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar initiated Encroachment Case No.89 of 1986 against the plaintiffs. During consolidation operation, the consolidation authority wrongly recorded the land in the name of the mother of defendants 3 to 5. They filed Consolidation Appeal No.40 of 1985 before the Deputy Director Consolidation. The Deputy Director held that the suit land vested in the State. With this factual scenario, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

4. Defendants 1 and 2 were set ex parte. Defendants 3 to 5 have filed the written statement pleading, inter alia, that the suit is barred by res judicata. The unregistered lease deed of 1944 is a fake one. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land. The description and boundaries of the suit land are vague. It was not the sole property of Mirza Usuf Beg. The plaintiffs have not acquired right, title and interest over the suit land. Plaintiffs have failed to produce the relevant records before the consolidation authority. The suit land was taken to Government Khata. The Government settled the land in their favour

5. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck twelve issues. Parties led evidence, both oral and documentary. On an anatomy of the pleadings and the evidence, learned trial court came to hold that the consolidation authorities have jurisdiction to declare right, title and interest and possession over the suit land. The decision of the consolidation authority will operate as res judicata. Unsuccessful plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.38/100 of 2006/99 before the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Puri, which was eventually dismissed.

6. Heard Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana learned counsel on behalf of Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, learned ASC. Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned courts below have committed a manifest illegality in disbelieving that the plaintiffs are the occupancy raiyats. Elaborating the submission, he submits that the suit land originally belonged to Mirza family. In the partition, the suit land fell to the share of Mirza Usuf Beg. The suit land adjoins to the homestead land of the plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiffs was in possession of the suit land. He approached Mirza Usuf Beg for lease of the land. Thereafter, the ex-landlord executed an unregistered lease deed on 9.1.1944 in his favour. Salami of Rs. 50/- was paid. The ex-landlord submitted expadia in his favour. Thereafter, tenancy ledger was opened, vide Ext.1. The father of the plaintiffs used to pay rent from 1963 to 1975, vide Ext.3 series.

7. In the objection case filed under Section 9 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short, "OCH&PFL Act"), the suit land was recorded in