JUDGMENT : Narasimham, J. - This second appeal is by Defendants 1 to 5 against the concurrent decisions of the two lower Courts decreeing their eviction from some lands described in schedule 'kha' of the plaint while dismissing the Respondent-Plaintiff's suit for the Appellants' eviction in respect of schedule 'ka' lands. 2. The material facts are as follows:-Schedule 'ka' lands consist of 6.34 acres appertaining to khatas 871 and 1.023 in villages Penthapal and Rouliadia. Schedule 'kha' lands consist of 2.50 acres appertaining to khata No. 871 in village Penthapal. In the current settlement the aforesaid two khatas were entered as 'nij dakhli' of the Plaintiff who was recorded as a tenure-holder (Madhya satwadhikari). The total area of the two khatas was shown as about 43.61 acres. It is an admitted fact that in the revision settlement the entire property was recorded in khata No. 1004 having an area of 46.73 acres as sthitiban lands of one Balakrishna Sahu. In the Provincial settlement of 1899, however, the same lands were recorded as Pahi Sthitiban lands of one Bhobani Biswal. The lands of the said Bhobani Biswal were sold by the Rent Court in execution case No. 181 of 1899-1900 for arrears of rent and purchased by Balakrishna Sahu sometime in November, 1899. In due course he obtained a sale certificate and delivery of possession and on 14-7-1908 he mortgaged the property with the ancestor of the Plaintiff. After his death his sons, for the purpose of discharging the mortgage, sold the property to him by a deed dated 30-5-1911. The Plaintiff therefore, alleged that as the successor-in-interest of the original Sthitiban raiyats he has also acquired occupancy raiyati interest in the property and that in the correct settlement, by mistake, his right was recorded as that of a tenure-holder and not that of a raiyat. The Appellants-Defendants were inducted on the lands as tenants by a Kabuliat dated 20-5-1939 which was expressly limited to a period of five years. The Appellants alleged that after the expiry of the period of lease they surrendered 'kha' schedule property which the Plaintiff settled with some other tenants. But the Appellants were said to have forcibly dispossessed them and thus become trespassers in respect of those lands. The Appellants alleged that after the expiry of the period of lease they surrendered 'kha' schedule property which the Plaintiff settled with some other tenants. But the Appellants were said to have forcibly dispossessed them and thus become trespassers in respect of those lands. As regards 'ka' schedule property, it was alleged that the Appellants refused to give up possession after the expiry of the lease and consequently the suit was brought for their eviction in respect of both the scheduled properties. 3. The Appellants' main defence was that the Current Settlement entry was correct, that the Plaintiff's status was that of a mere tenure-holder and that the Appellants being settled raiyats of the village obtained occupancy right over the property when they were inducted on the land as tenants by the Kabuliat dated 20-5-1939. 4. Their Lordships dealt with the facts. 5. As regards 'ka' schedule property, the findings of both the courts are that the current settlement entry was incorrect and that the Respondent-Plaintiff's status was that of an occupancy raiyat. It is true that in view of the current settlement entry and also in view of the presumption arising out of Section 5(5) of the Orissa Tenancy Act (as the total area in the possession of the Plaintiff exceeds 33 acres) these is a very strong presumption that the Plaintiff's status is that of a tenure-holder and the burden is heavy on him to rebut this presumption. For that purpose, he has relied not only on the previous settlement entries (which are wholly insufficient for the purpose) but also on judgments in civil suits where he was held to be an occupancy raiyat in respect of the entire property. In particular, I would refer to the judgment in Title Suit No. 63 of 1929 (Ext. 11) which was fought out between the Plaintiff and his cosharers on the one hand and Bhobani Biswal and his cosharers on the other. The said Bhobani Biswal was admittedly the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiff, whose name was recorded in the provincial settlement as Pahi Sthitiban tenant in respect of the entire property. In that suit, however, he put forward the plea that the Plaintiffs were tenure-holders and that he became an occupancy raiyat in respect of a small portion out of the disputed property which was the subject-matter of litigation in that suit. In that suit, however, he put forward the plea that the Plaintiffs were tenure-holders and that he became an occupancy raiyat in respect of a small portion out of the disputed property which was the subject-matter of litigation in that suit. But he had to admit that when he acquired the property before the Provincial Settlement it was for the purpose of cultivating the same" and not for the purpose of establishing tenants on it. It was in view of this admission that the learned Munsif, who decided that suit on 13-1-1930, held that the Plaintiffs' status was that of an occupancy raiyat, they being successors-in-interest of the original raiyats, namely, Bhobani Biswal and his co-sharers. The judgment in that suit was delivered on 13-1-1930 before the publication of the Current Settlement record-of-rights. On the 1st of June, 1930 an appeal against that judgment was filed before the Subordinate Judge who decided it on 18-4-1931. From the judgment of the appellate Court it appears that the finally published Current Settlement record-of-rights was produced before the appellate Court who held after an entire review f the evidence that the presumption of correctness attaching to the same had been rebutted. It is true that in these two judgments the Appellants were not a party and they could not obviously be a party, because they came on the land only in 1939. Hence though technically the judgments may not be binding on them they are very important pieces of evidence to establish the status of the Plaintiff, especially because his predecessor-in-interest Bhobani Biswal was a party to the same, and also because by the time the appellate judgment was delivered, the current settlement entries had been finally made and they were duly considered by the court, Apart from these two judgments, both the lower courts relied on a subsequent decision of a competent court in Misc. Case No. 142 of 1939 for correction of the settlement entry. Doubtless, this case was started after the execution of the Patta in favour of the Appellants. But the Plaintiff did not make them a party in that case. Therefore, it may not have much value. 6. On behalf of the Appellants, however, reliance, was very much placed on the statement in the Patta to the effect that the Plaintiff represented himself as a tenure-holder when he executed the Patta in favour of the Appellants. But the Plaintiff did not make them a party in that case. Therefore, it may not have much value. 6. On behalf of the Appellants, however, reliance, was very much placed on the statement in the Patta to the effect that the Plaintiff represented himself as a tenure-holder when he executed the Patta in favour of the Appellants. There can be no question of the Appellant being misled by the representation inasmuch as in the Patta they obtained settlement for a period of five years only. If they thought that they were being inducted on the land as occupancy raiyats they should not have agreed to remain for a limited period of five years. Hence, there Can be no question of estoppel inasmuch as the Appellants were not misled by the wrong description of the status of the Plaintiff in the Patta. Moreover, in another suit (T.S. No. 294 of 1939) filed by the Appellants themselves on 1-10-39 for ejecting some of the previous tenants from the disputed property, the Appellants stated that the Plaintiff was an occupancy raiyat and that the Appellants status was that of an under-raiyat. I would not attach much importance to this either because it appears that both in the Patta and in the plaint of this suit both parties merely copied out the current settlement entry. 7. It is true that there is a slight error in the reasoning of the lower appellate which has been made much of by the learned advocate for the Appellants. The lower appellate court thought that in the Khewat of the current settlement the disputed properties were recorded in the nij dakhli khata of the khewat holder and that this entry was inconsistent with the other entry regarding the status of the Plaintiff. I am however unable to accept this reasoning. It was because the Plaintiff's status was recorded as a tenure-holder that separate khewat was given to him and the property in his possession was recorded in his nij dakhli khata. There can be no question of nij dakhli so far as properties in the possession of an occupancy raiyat are concerned and hence there is no inconsistency in the settlement entry. There can be no question of nij dakhli so far as properties in the possession of an occupancy raiyat are concerned and hence there is no inconsistency in the settlement entry. But both the courts were justified in holding that the previous judgments and the history about how the Plaintiff's family acquired the property from Balakrishna Sahu and Bhobani Biswal and the two previous settlement entries when construed along with the other pieces of evidence unmistakably show that the presumption of correctness attaching to the settlement entry has been rebutted. The Plaintiff's status is really that of an occupancy raiyat and not of a tenure-holder. 8. The lower appellate court thought that after the expiry of the lease, the Appellants were holding over as under tenants, and that they could be evicted only after giving proper notice to quit as required by Section 57(b) of the Orissa Tenancy Act. Hence, he dismissed the Plaintiff's suit in respect of schedule 'ka' lands. It is unnecessary to consider whether Section 57(b) of the O.T. Act would apply because in any case by now by virtue of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act which is in force, the Appellants cannot be evicted from this property. Hence, the dismissal of the Plaintiff's suit for eviction of the Appellants from 'ka' schedule property must, in any case, stand. 9. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order for costs. Panigrahi, C.J. 10. I agree. 11. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed