IMPORTANT POINT
A suit for declaration of title is maintainable even if there are erroneous entries in settlement records, as such entries do not create or extinguish title. The civil court has the authority to determine the real title holder based on evidence of ownership and possession.

JUDGMENT

A.C. Behera, J.

This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

2. The appellant of this 2nd appeal was the defendant before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1984 and she was the respondent before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.20 of 1987.

3. The respondents of this 2nd appeal were the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1984 and they were the respondents before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.20 of 1987.

4. The suit of the plaintiffs (respondents in this 2nd appeal) before the trial court vide T.S. No.13 of 1984 was a suit for declaration.

5. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1984 as per their pleadings against the defendant was that, Braja Kuanr was their common ancestor. Braja Kuanr died leaving behind his three sons, i.e., Khaga, Laxman and Padman. Khaga died issueless. Laman Kuanr died leaving behind his two sons, i.e., Bada and Sada. Bada died leaving behind his two sons, i.e., Gohardhan(plaintiff no.1) and Balabhadra(plaintiff no.2). Sada died leaving behind his one son, i.e., Rathi Kuanr and that Rathi died leaving behind his two sons, i.e., Chihiku and Tahayabi. Padamn died leaving behind his son Buddha. Budha died leaving behind his two sons, i.e. Jadu and Balabhadra. Jadu died leaving behind Rasogalla(defendant).

In order to have a better appreciation, the genealogy of the parties is depicted hereunder for an instance reference:-

The suit properties are Sabik Plot No.941 under Sabik Khata No.20 of 1936 settlement, which corresponds Hal Plot No.3120 under Hal Khata No.171 in Mouza Kukudahad under Kantabanji Police Station. The suit properties along with other properties were the ancestral properties of the parties.

After the death of their common ancestor of Braja Kuanr, there was amicable partition of their all ancestral properties between three sons of Braja Kuanr, i.e., between Khaga, Laxman and Padamn.

As per such partition between Khaga, Laxman and Padman, the settlement authorities of 1936 Sabik settlement noted their respective possession in the Sabik settlement RoR according to the allotments made in their favour in that partition prior to 1936 Sabik settlement. The possession of Laxman Kuanr was noted in respect of the suit Sabik plot, as the same along with some other properties had fallen in his share in such partition prior to 1936 Sabik settlement.

The properties, those had fallen in the share of Laxman including the suit properties were partitioned between the plaintiffs and their uncle Sada, on the day of Akshyatrutiya in the year 1945. In the said partition, the suit properties had fallen into the share of the plaintiffs and since then, i.e., since 1945, the plaintiffs are possessing the suit properties being the owners thereof and they are continuing their ownership and possession on the same till date.

The defendant has no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties. She (defendant) is a stranger to the suit properties, because, she (defendant) is a stranger to their family. Because, the plaintiffs belong to the branch of Laxman, but, the defendant belongs to the branch of Padman.

In the last Hal major settlement, the suit properties have been recorded erroneously in the name of the defendant without any basis. When on the basis of the said erroneous recording of the suit properties in the Hal RoR in the name of defendant, she(defendant) claimed her title over the suit properties, then, the plaintiffs approached the civil court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1984 against the defendant praying for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit properties along with other relief, to which they (plaintiffs) are entitled for.

6. Having been noticed from the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1984, the defendant contested the same by filing her written statement denying the allegations alleged by t