A party must substantiate claims of ownership through credible evidence, or risk losing the claim, even when asserting rights based on an unregistered sale deed.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the reversing Judgment.

2. The appellants of this 2^nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.6 of 1997 and they were the respondents before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.14 of 1999.

The respondents of this 2^nd Appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.6 of 1997 and they were the appellants before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.14 of 1999.

The suit of the plaintiffs (those are the appellants in this 2^nd Appeal) before the trial court vide T.S. No.6 of 1997 was a suit for declaration and recovery of possession.

3. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.6 of 1997 against the defendants was that, suit Plot No.565 under Khata No.164 measuring an area of Ac.0.115 decimals in village Baladi were originally belonged to their father Nadi Kalta. After the death of their father Nadi Kalta, the suit properties devolved upon them (plaintiffs). Accordingly, the plaintiffs inherited the suit properties. The suit plot No.565 adjoins to plot Nos.563,562 and 564. All the properties i.e. suit plot No.565 along with the undisputed plot No.563,562 & 564 are their ancestral properties. About 10 years back, the defendants possessed a portion of Plot No.563 of the plaintiffs on their permission. When, the plaintiffs requested the defendants to vacate that portion of plot No.563, they (defendants) did not vacate, then the plaintiffs filed a suit vide T.S. No.53/1992 against the defendants praying for their eviction from that occupied portion of plot No.563. The said suit vide T.S. No.53/1992 was decreed on dated 08.07.1994 in favour of the plaintiffs for eviction of the defendants from Plot No.563.

4. When, in spite of passing of the Judgment and decree in T.S. No.53/1992, the defendants did not vacate that Plot No.563, then, they (plaintiffs) initiated a Execution Case vide Execution Case No.2/1997 against the defendants to execute the Judgment and Decree passed in T.S. No.53/1992. But, during the course of execution of that Execution Case No.2/1997, the defendants vacated that plot No.563 in favour of the plaintiffs. But, after vacation of that plot No.563, they (defendants) with their mala fide intention and in order to harass the plaintiffs by applying their muscle power, they (defendants) occupied its adjacent plot i.e. the suit plot No.565 of the plaintiffs and they (defendants) claimed their ownership over that suit plot No.565 through an unregistered sale deed. So, without getting any way, the plaintiffs approached the civil court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.6 of 1997 against the defendants praying for declaration of their right, title, interest over suit plot No.565 and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants.

5. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.6 of 1997, they (defendants) contested the same denying the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint by taking their stands inter alia therein that:

The suit Plot No.565 was purchased by their father through an unregistered sale deed dated 27.09.1964 from the father of the plaintiffs i.e. from Nadi Kalta and accordingly, since 27.09.1964, they (defendants) are in continuous possession over the suit plot No.565. As, they (defendants) have purchase