The judgment emphasizes the importance of historical records, legal proceedings, and possession in determining right, title, and interest over properties.

JUDGMENT

D. Dash, J. - The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the judgment and decree 16.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore in R.F.A. No.166 of 2016. By the said judgment and decree, the lower appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2016 and 23.07.2016 respectively passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Balasore, in C.S. No.548of 2010/894 of 2014.

The Respondent Nos.1 to 8, as the Plaintiffs had filed the suit arraigning the Appellant as the principal Defendant, i.e, Defendant No.1 against whom the reliefs had been claimed and he alone had contested the suit. The other Defendant, i.,e, Defendant No.2 although had filed the written statement, yet did not nor participate in the hearing of the suit. During the pendency of the first appeal, said Defendant No.2, who has been arraigned as Respondent No.9 having died leaving no legal representatives, her name stood expunged.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity as also to avoid

confusion; the parties hereinafter have been referred to in the same rank as assigned to them in the original proceeding before the Trial Court i.e. the Appellant as 'the Defendant No.1' whereas the Respondents as 'the Plaintiffs'.

3. Rival case of the parties are as follows:-

Plaintiffs' case is that the immovable property described in Lot No.1 of the plaint vide RMS Plot No.917 and 914 corresponding to the land under MS Plot No.844 and 885 as also CS Plot No.389 and 391 had been purchased by the Plaintiff No.3 by registered sale deed admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.6.

The immovable property described in Lot No.2 of the plaint which stood recorded under RMS Plot No.1336, 1322, 1733 correspond to MS Plot No.706, 707, 708 and 1341 which further correspond to CS Plot No.483, 484, 492, 443. This property is said to have been purchased by Plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 by registered sale deed which has been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.7. It is further stated that the land under RMS Plot No.1214 corresponding to MS Plot No.1172, further corresponding to CS Plot No.806 described in Lot No.3 of the plaint was also purchased by Plaintiff Nos.7 and 8 by registered sale deed under Ext.5.

The plaintiffs have come up with the case that one Bhabani Prasad Das was the common ancestor of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. He died leaving behind his sons, namely, Jadaba, Purusottam, Chandramohan, Kumuda and Sudhakar. Defendant No.2 is the only legal heir and successor of Jadaba. Purusottam died leaving behind his sons, namely, Sashi, Sasanka, Sudhir and Santosh (the Defendant No.1).

In O.S. No.95 of 1950 of the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Balasore, the suit land with other properties of the family constituting of the legal heirs and successors of Bhabani Prasad Das were the subject matter. It was a suit for partition. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2, Purusottam and others were parties therein. To be more specific, the Defendant No.2 was the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 was the Defendant No.8 in the said suit. The suit stood partly decreed. So, the Defendant No.2 being aggrieved by the same, had filed First Appeal No.71 of 1952 before this Court. The said First Appeal had been disposed of by holding the suit land described in Schedule-B of the said plaint as liable for partition and 1/5th share from out of that was allotted in favour of the Defendant No.2, who was the Plaintiff therein. Moreover, the extent of land of Ac.10.00 of the land described in Schedule-Kha of the written statement therein was recorded in the name of the husband of Defendant No.2 and the first wife of her husband. That decree was made final wherein the land involved in the present suit and other lands standing recorded under CS Khata No.30 was allotted to the share of Defendant No.2. On her subsequent move, she had been delivered with the possession of the same in an Execution Proceeding.

It is the