JUDGMENT : B.N. Misra, J. - This second appeal was filed by the late Raghab Padhan who was Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 in the Court below. He died during the pendency of this appeal and his widow Pitei Bewa and his two sons, namely, Prahallad Padhan and Sudam Charan Padhan have been substituted in his place as Appellants 1/a to 1/c respectively. Respondent No. 1-Sadasib Champati also having died during the pendency of this appeal, has been substituted by his two widows, mother and three daughters as Respondents 1/a to 1/f respectively as his legal heirs. Respondents 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were Defendants 2, 4, 5, 6 and 3 respectively in the trial Court. The Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title over the disputed properties and for recovery of possession thereof on eviction of Defendants 1 and 2. His suit was decreed. Defendants 1 and 2 came up in appeal before the learned lower appellate Court. Their appeal having been allowed on contest against Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 and ex parte against the other Respondents, the Plaintiff had come up in second appeal to this Court. 2. The Plaintiffs case may be briefly stated. The subject matter of dispute relates to A.0.14 decimals of land in the middle portion out of A.0.79 decimals of land of plot No. 4829 under Khata No. 108 of village Baunsiapada, Nayagarh. The suit plot was recorded in the name of Gopi Baliarsingh, father of Defendants 3 to 6. After his death the property came to the possession of the aforesaid Defendants. In an amicable division between them, Defendant No. 6 received the eastern 1/3rd, Defendant No. 5 received the middle 1/3rd and Defendants 3 and 4 received the western 1/3rd of plot No. 4829 and they remained in separate possession of their respective portions. On 29-3-1963, Defendants 5 and 6 executed a registered deed of sale in favour of the sons of the Plaintiff in respect of A.0.39 decimals of land on the eastern side of plot No. 4829, Defendant No. 6 alienating A.0.26 decimals to the east of the plot being his 1/3rd share and Defendant No. 5 alienating A.0.13 decimals in the middle of the plot being i of his share. Since the date of their purchase the Plaintiff and his sons remained in possession of the A.0.39 decimals of land. Since the date of their purchase the Plaintiff and his sons remained in possession of the A.0.39 decimals of land. Some time thereafter Defendant No. 6 wanted to dispose of A.0.17 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 3064/5587 in favour of Defendants 1 and 2 and he wanted that Defendants 3 to 5 should give their consent to the proposed sale. On 26-4-1966 Defendant No. 6 executed a sale deed in favour of Defendants 1 and 2 in respect of A.014 decimals of land appertaining to plot No 4829, which forms the subject matter of the present dispute, instead of the land appertaining to plot No. 3064/5587 which he had actually wanted to sell. Defendants 3 to 5 unwittingly and in good faith give their consent to the aforesaid sale deed dated 26-4-1966 believing that the sale was in respect of plot No. 3064/5587. Soon thereafter Defendants 3 to 5 came to know that fraud had been committed upon them and hence they confronted Defendant No. 6. The latter handed over the registration receipt to Defendants 3 to 5 instead of giving the same to Defendant No. 1 in whose favour it had been endorsed. On 18-5-1966 Defendant No. 5 sold the disputed land in favour of the Plaintiff by a registered deed of sale for a consideration of Rs. 1000/-. Defendants 3 and 4 had also joined in the sale deed as co-vendors. After purchase the Plaintiff remained in possession of the land purchased by him from Defendant No. 5. It is alleged that Defendants 1 and 2 prevailed upon Defendant No. 6 to give them another registration receipt on the strength of which they managed to obtain the original sale deed from the Sub-Registrar's office. However the Plaintiff who was in possession of the disputed land raised paddy thereon in the year 1966, but Defendants 1 and 2 stealthily removed the crops. The Plaintiff filed a criminal case against Defendants 1 and 2, but the latter was acquitted. A case u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was instituted in respect of the disputed land and in that proceeding Defendants 1 and 2 were declared to be in possession of the suit land, although they had no title over the said land and had come into unlawful possession of the same. A case u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was instituted in respect of the disputed land and in that proceeding Defendants 1 and 2 were declared to be in possession of the suit land, although they had no title over the said land and had come into unlawful possession of the same. Accordingly, the Plaintiff came to the Civil Court with the prayer that he should be declared to be the owner of the disputed land and put in possession of the same after eviction of Defendants 1 and 2 therefrom through Court. 3. The case of Defendants 1 and 2 may be briefly stated. It is admitted that the suit plot was recorded in the name of Gopal Baliarsingh. It is denied that the division amongst the brothers took place in the manner indicated in the plaint. According to these Defendants, the suit plot (4829) was divided amongst Defendants 4, 5 arid 6 and the other brother Defendant No. 3 got an equal share from the different plot. Defendant No. 4 got A.0.37 decimals to the west, Defendant No. 6 got 260.26 decimals in the middle and Defendant No. 5 got A.0.26 decimals to the east of plot No. 4829. On 29-3.1963 Defendant No. 5 sold his entire share of A 0.26 decimals to the east and Defendant No. 6 sold A 0.13 decimals to the east out of his share of A.0.26 decimals in the middle of plot No. 4829. Defendants 5 and 6 jointly executed the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was in possession of the aforesaid A.0.39 decimals to the east of plot No. 4829. Subsequently on 26-1-1966 Defendant No. 6 disposed of his balance share of A 0.13 decimals to the west out of the middle portion which had fallen to his share in favour of Defendants 1 and 2 by a registered deed of sale and Defendants 3 to 5 had given their consent to the aforesaid sale on the body of the sale deed. It is denied that Defendant No. 6 ever wanted to sell A.0.17 decimals of land out of plot No. 3064/5587 to Defendants 1 and 2. It is denied that Defendant No. 6 ever wanted to sell A.0.17 decimals of land out of plot No. 3064/5587 to Defendants 1 and 2. It is stated that Defendant No. 6 was in possession of A 0.13 decimals of land to the west of his middle portion until he sold the same to Defendants 1 and 2 and thereafter the latter had been in possession of the same. Defendant No. 6 who had retained the registration receipt represented to Defendants 1 and 2 that the said receipt was lost at the time of delivery of possession. Subsequently Defendants 1 and 6 obtained a duplicate receipt and took return of the document from the office of the Sub-Registrar. Accordingly Defendants 1 and 2 have prayed that the suit should be dismissed. 4. Defendants 3 to 5 supported the case of the Plaintiff while Defendant No. 6 supported the claim of Defendants 1 and 2. The learned Munsif found that the Plaintiff had right, title and interest over the disputed land and accordingly decreed the Plaintiffs suit. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, Defendants 1 and 2 filed Title Appeal No. 28 of 1972 and the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. The Plaintiff thereafter filed the present appeal which was admitted for hearing on the substantial question of law as to whether the lower appellate Court was justified in rejecting the oral evidence on the side of the Plaintiff on the question of possession on the sale ground that in a proceeding u/s 146, Code of Criminal Procedure, the possession of the Defendants had been found. 5. Before going to the question of law indicated above, as learned Counsel on both sides had addressed the Court in that regard, I would briefly refer to the rival claims of title, by the Plaintiff on the basis of the sale deed Ext. 7 dated 18-5-1966 and by Defendants 1 and 2 on the basis of sale deed Ext. A dated 26-4-1966. In this case admittedly the suit plot No. 4829 stood recorded in the name of Gopi Baliarsingh after whose death the said property devolved upon Defendants 3 to 6 as joint family property. That there was an amicable division of the joint family properties between the brothers is also admitted. A dated 26-4-1966. In this case admittedly the suit plot No. 4829 stood recorded in the name of Gopi Baliarsingh after whose death the said property devolved upon Defendants 3 to 6 as joint family property. That there was an amicable division of the joint family properties between the brothers is also admitted. The dispute is with regard to the manner of division of plot No. 4829. It may be noted that as per Ext. 8, the registered deed of sale dated 29-3-1963, Defendants 5 and 6 jointly sold A.0.39 decimals of land to the east of plot No. 4829. On 26-4-1966 Defendant No. 5 sold his balance share of A.0.13 decimals by registered deed at sale Ext. A to Defendants 1 and 2. In the sale deed Ext. A it is noted that Defendant No. 6 was in separate possession of the aforesaid A.0.13 decimals of land and Defendants 3 to 5 have endorsed in writing that they had no objection to the sale of the said land in favour of Defendants 1 and 2. The Plaintiff has miserably failed to substantiate his plea of fraud as regards Ext. A. There is no material worthy of acceptance on the basis of which it could be said that Defendant No. 6 had unwittingly sold A.0.13 decimals out of plot No. 4829 instead of plot No. 3064/5587. The learned appellate Court was correct in rejecting the evidence of Defendants 4 and 5 who are admittedly highly interested in the Plaintiff and inimically disposed towards Defendant No. 1. In his former statement in the criminal case, Ext. L, the Plaintiff had stated that Defendant No. 6 had not handed over the registration receipt to Defendant No. 1 as the latter had not paid the full consideration money. This former statement of the Plaintiff contradicts his plea in this case. Defendants 1 and 6 had applied for a duplicate registration receipt on the ground that the original had been lost and this circumstance also contradicts the plea of the Plaintiff. P.W. 3, the scribe of Ext. A, has stated before the Court that the contents of Ext. A were read over and explained to Defendants 3 to 6 whereafter the latter had signed the same. In the circumstances stated above, the learned appellate Court is correct in his conclusions that Defendant No. 5 having disposed of his entire share under Ext. A, has stated before the Court that the contents of Ext. A were read over and explained to Defendants 3 to 6 whereafter the latter had signed the same. In the circumstances stated above, the learned appellate Court is correct in his conclusions that Defendant No. 5 having disposed of his entire share under Ext. 8 had no subsisting interest in the disputed land to convey and title in respect of the sale in favour of the Plaintiff under the sale deed Ext. 7 and that Defendants 1 and 2 have acquired valid title over the disputed land under the sale deed Ext. A. 6. It has been strenuously urged on behalf of the Appellants that the learned appellate Court acted illegally in relying solely on Ext. J, the order dated 23-8-1969 in a reference u/s 146(1), Code of Criminal Procedure for his conclusion that Defendants 1 and 2 were in possession of the disputed land. In this connection, reliance is placed on a decision of this High Court, Chakrapani Mukhi and Anr. v. Dhruba Charan Mukhi and Anr. ILR 1966 Cutt 329 wherein it was held that the findings of the Criminal Court were not binding on the Civil Court which had to come to its own findings on the merits of the evidence. There can be no dispute regarding the proposition of law enunciated in the aforesaid case. On going through the judgment of the learned appellate Court I find that there is no justification for the criticism that the learned appellate Court had treated Ext. J as conclusive in the matter of possession. Ext. J is the order dated 23-8-1969 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh in a reference u/s 146(1), Code of Criminal Procedure. It is evidence of the fact that as between the present parties in dispute Defendants 1 and 2 were declared to be in possession of the disputed land at the relevant time. That is the evidentiary value of Ext. J, nothing more, nothing less. It is to be considered as a piece of evidence along with other evidence adduced in the case. The Plaintiff's own case is that he was not in possession of the disputed land prior to the filing of the suit and hence he has prayed for recovery of possession. J, nothing more, nothing less. It is to be considered as a piece of evidence along with other evidence adduced in the case. The Plaintiff's own case is that he was not in possession of the disputed land prior to the filing of the suit and hence he has prayed for recovery of possession. P.W. 5 has stated that though the Plaintiff after taking possession of the disputed land had sowed paddy crops and attended to all agricultural operations, Defendants 1 and 2 had removed the paddy crops on account of which there were cases between them. P.W. 5 further states that for about two years prior to his deposition in Court Defendants 1 and 2 have been in possession of the disputed land. This statement cannot be accepted as according to the plaint, Defendants 1 and 2 have been in unlawful possession of the disputed land prior to the filing of the suit. P.W. 7 had been put in charge of paddy bundles for one year at the instance of the police. Not much reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 8 as they were accused persons in the criminal case filed against them by Defendant No. 1. Thus the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff in support of his possession over the disputed land being sketchy and inconsistent cannot be held to prove that the Plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land. D.W. 1 supports the possession of Defendants 1 and 2. But he is a highly interested witness in as much as he was a witness for Defendant No. 1 in the criminal cases between the parties. D.W. 2 has supported the possession of Defendants 1 and 2. In view of the infirmities in the evidence of the witnesses for the Plaintiff and in view of the evidence of D.W. 2 and Ext. 1. I agree with the learned appellate Court that the Plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the disputed land. 7. Accordingly this second appeal is dismissed with costs throughout. The judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court are confirmed. Final Result : Dismissed