JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Legal representatives of the Defendant No. 1 are the Appellants against a confirming judgment in their second appeal. 2. This appeal arises out of a suit for title and possession. Both the Courts have found the disputed land to have been sold by the original owner to the Plaintiff. Case of the Defendant No. 1 was that the Plaintiff played a fraud on him and took the sale deed in his own name which was actually to be executed in the name of the Defendant No. 1 and on that basis claimed that having continued in possession of the disputed land for more than the statutory period he had acquired title by adverse possession for which the suit was liable to be dismissed. Both the contentions of the Defendant No. 1 not having been accepted by the Courts below this second appeal has been filed by his legal representatives. Normally, the findings are findings of fact. However, on account of non-consideration of three documents by the appellate Court, this Court admitted the appeal framing the substantial question of law which reads as follows: The appeal is admitted for hearing on the question of as to whether the decision of the appellate Court is vitiated due to non-consideration of Exts. D and D-l as for non-consideration of the presumption arising out of non-production of list of purchasers. 3. Exts. D and D/l are the two draft record-of-rights, in the name of the Defendant. Record-of-rights do not confer title on a person where the person does not otherwise possess the same. When the Defendant No. 1 claimed that he is the real purchaser of the vendor he admits the title of the vendor. Unless the sale deed is set aside, vendor having admitted title, the same confers title on the purchaser. There may have been some presumption arising out of the draft record of rights regarding possession but in the facts and circumstances of this case the prayer being for recovery of possession, the draft record of rights would not render any assistance to the Appellants. Again the authorities under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act while preparing the draft record-of-rights have no statutory power to adjudicate the controversy relating to title between the parties. They enter into the question by giving finding which is ancillary in nature. In such circumstances, even if Ext. Again the authorities under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act while preparing the draft record-of-rights have no statutory power to adjudicate the controversy relating to title between the parties. They enter into the question by giving finding which is ancillary in nature. In such circumstances, even if Ext. D and D/1 would have been considered, the finding would not have been affected. The judgment of the lower appellate Court is not vitiated on that account. 4. It is the case of the Defendant that it was decided that the vendor would sell the portions of land to the persons in possession. Accordingly, a list of the purchasers was prepared. The list has not been filed by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, it is contended that adverse inference should be drawn. The adverse inference even if would be drawn would indicate that the Defendant No. 1 was in possession and agreed to transfer the land in dispute to the Defendant No. 1. If Defendant No. 1 would have filed the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale against the vendor the question would have been different. Once Defendant No. 1 having agreed to purchase the disputed land admitted the title of the, vendor, the long possession would only be treated to be permissive in nature and no finding of adverse possession can be given in favour of the Defendant No. 1. Therefore, the adverse inference even if drawn would be of no assistance to the Appellants. The judgment of the appellate Court is therefore, not vitiated on that account. 5. This is a peculiar case of its own. In that view of the matter, in course of hearing, I suggested the parties that the suit should be compromised whereunder the Plaintiff should pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- at the rate of Rs. 500/- per decimal, to the Appellants. I adjourned the case till to day to enable the learned Counsel for both the parties to get instructions from their clients took time for the purpose. To day Mr. M. Patra, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondent, on instruction, has categorically accepted my suggestion to be fair in the peculiar circumstances of this case and exercised that the Plaintiff has agreed to pay Rs. 7,000/- to the legal representatives of the Defendant No. 1. Therefore. I direct that the Plaintiff shall pay Rs. To day Mr. M. Patra, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondent, on instruction, has categorically accepted my suggestion to be fair in the peculiar circumstances of this case and exercised that the Plaintiff has agreed to pay Rs. 7,000/- to the legal representatives of the Defendant No. 1. Therefore. I direct that the Plaintiff shall pay Rs. 7, 000/- to the legal representatives of deceased Defendant No. 1 before getting delivery of possession of the disputed land. 6. In conclusion, although I have held that the substantial question of law formulated by this Court would not be of any assistance to reverse the decree in view of the acceptance of my proposal by the Plaintiff as stated in Court by Mr. M. Patra on instruction from the Plaintiff. I modify the decree as follows: The suit be and the same is hereby decreed on contest against the Defendants. The Plaintiff, however, shall pay Rs. 7,000/- (rupees seven thousand) to the legal representatives of the Defendant No. I, namely, Defendants l (a) to l (c) and on receipt of the same the said legal representatives of the Defendant No. 1 shall deliver possession of the suit land to the Plaintiff. If the amount for any reason is not accepted by the legal representatives and possession is not delivered to the Plaintiff, within one month from today, Plaintiff is at liberty to execute the decree for recovery of possession by depositing Rs. 7,000/- in the executing Court. The decree can be executed if the legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No. 1 do not deliver possession even after receipt of the amount of Rs. 7,000/-. The amount of Rs. 7,000/- if deposited in the executing Court shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the legal representatives of the Defendant No. 1 after the Plaintiff is given possession of the disputed land. 7. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed subject to the modification of the decree. Parties shall bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Dismissed