JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The Plaintiff is in appeal against a reversing decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska, in a suit for title and possession in respect of 16 decimals of land appertaining to survey No. 748 and recovery of Re. 86/- which was the mesne profits of the disputed property during the pendency of a proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. His case was that one Narayan Padhi who was the owner of the property sold the same to him under an unregistered sale deed dated 7-12-1949 (Ext. 10). In the record of rights (Ext. 1) the Plaintiff?s name was duly entered after cancelling the name of his vendor. In 1954 the estate vested. The disputed property was a part of the whole inam village. He accordingly applied u/s 7 of the Estates Abolition Act in Claim Case No. 361/58. By order dated 12-1-1958 (Ext. 7) the disputed property along with other properties was finally settled with him on fair and equitable rent. Subsequently, the Defendants created the dispute over possession. This led to the initiation of a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and that proceeding terminated in favour of the Defendants on 11.12-1961. Hence the suit was filed on 10-5-1962. 3. The Defendants 2 and 3 remained ex-parte. The Defendant No. 1 alone contested. His case that he had acquired the property under a registered sale deed dated 1-8-1958 from one Hiswambhat Sahu who had obtained title thereto from one Satyabadi Das under a registered sale deed dated 21-11-1954. Satyabadi Dasis said to have acquired title under a deed of relinquishment from the admitted owner Narayan. Padhi vide Ext. A dated 22-8.1951. 4. Before the Courts below, the question for decision, therefore, was as to who had good title-the Plaintiff or Satyabadi from when the Defendant ultimately claimed title. The validity of Ext. 10, the unregistered sale deed dated 7-12-1949 on one side and of Ext. A dated 22-8-1951 on the other was duly enquired into. The loomed trial judge found in favour of the Plaintiff. The lower appellate Court found in favour of the Defendant no, 1. That is how the Plaintiff is in appeal before this Court. 5. 10, the unregistered sale deed dated 7-12-1949 on one side and of Ext. A dated 22-8-1951 on the other was duly enquired into. The loomed trial judge found in favour of the Plaintiff. The lower appellate Court found in favour of the Defendant no, 1. That is how the Plaintiff is in appeal before this Court. 5. It does not appear necessary to get into the entire matter on account of the fact that after the whole inam village vested in the State Government on 1-7-1954, the Plaintiff as also the Defendant No. 1 independently applied for settlement of the land u/s 7 of Orissa A of 1 of 1952. The order passed on the application of the Plaintiff is Ext. 7 and the order passed on the application of the Defendant No. 1 is Ext. 8. The collector under the Act by his order dated 12-1.1958 settled the disputed property with the Plaintiff. The rent schedule was accordingly issued to him. By order dated 10-11-1960 (Ext. 8) the claim made by the Defendant No. 1 was rejected. This aspect of the matter has been admitted by the Defendant No. 1 himself. The Defendant No. 1 who is also d. w. 1 has clearly stated in his cross-examination as follows: It is a fact that my application in ?R? form was rejected and that of the Plaintiff was allowed and the rent was assessed in his name. I have not appealed against this order. Thus, the admitted position is that the settlement made in favour of the Plaintiff under the Estates Abolition Act has become final. Any defect in the Plaintiff?s title prior to the settlement need not be enquired into now, particularly because the decision of the collector under the Act is not open to question u/s 39 of the Estates Abolition Act. In the present suit that question is not open to be gone into again. 6. The learned appellate judge fell into, an error in relaying upon a document marked Ext. J dated 28.8. 1963. That document is an extract from the order sheet of that date and is to the following effect: Perused the report of the Amin. Transfer of the lands detailed below is allowed in favour of the transferee. Intimate the R.I. concerned to effect necessary change in the relevant village register and? report compliance by 20th September, 1963. 1963. That document is an extract from the order sheet of that date and is to the following effect: Perused the report of the Amin. Transfer of the lands detailed below is allowed in favour of the transferee. Intimate the R.I. concerned to effect necessary change in the relevant village register and? report compliance by 20th September, 1963. This, order is purported to have been passed in a proceeding which has been registered as S.L.R. No. 870/63 (by mistake shown as of 1968). This certainly cannot be taken to be a proceeding under the Estates Abolition Act. After the claim was rejected under Ext. 8 in 1960, another proceeding of this type under Orissa Act 1 of 1952 is not contemplated. No evidence has been given in support of this document and in the lower appellate Court it was accepted without objection and was marked on a public document. I do not thing, the lower appellate Court was justified in coming to conclude that the effect of Rd. 7 had been rendered nugatory by virtue, of the subsequent order of the Additional Tahasildar. At any rate, this seems to be an executive order and not one under the Estates Abolition Act. As between Ext. 7 and Ext. J, Ext. 7 is certainly entitled to preference because it gives title to the party. 7. I would accordingly reverse the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the trial Court. The appeal is allowed. There would be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed