P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 1, 2 and 3 are the appellants. Plaintiffs-Respondents 1 to 4 and proforma defendants 5 to 7 (Respondents 6 to 8) are the successors-in-interest of late Gajendra Narayan Panda, Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 being the sons, plaintiff no. 4 being the widow and defendants 5 to 7 being the daughters. The suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of disputed 'ka' schedule property, recovery of possession and for mesne profit and for permanent injunction. 'ka' schedule property consists of two plots, plot nos. 33 and 34 corresponding to major settlement Khasada no. 491 with an area of AO. 79 decimals. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs' case, the said disputed land had been purchased by their predecessor-in-interest, Gajendra Narayan Panda, from Bidyadhar Satpathy and Gadadhar Satpathy in July, 1934 and, thereafter, the plaintiffs are in possession. It is further stated that proforma defendants 5 to 7 had relinquished their interest in favour of the plaintiffs. It is further averred that in November 1981, the defendants trespassed and constructed a kutcha thatched hut on the disputed land, thereby forcing the plaintiffs to file the suit. ( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 contested the suit by filing joint written statements. While not denying that Rajendra Narayan Panda was the owner in respect of plot nos. 34 and 35, they claim right over the said plots. According to them out of the adjacent plot no. 36 with an area of Ac. 3. 73 decimals, one Shyam Sundar Satpathy had purchased Ac. 1. 00 of land on 25-6-1937 from the legal heirs of Rasik Ray Thakur marfat Adarmani, who was the original owner. The aforesaid Shyam Sundar Satpathy, subsequently transferred the aforesaid Ac. 1. 00 land from plot no. 36 to one Panchanan Chatterjee by a registered sale deed dated 17-5-1951. Subsequently, Manchanan Chatterjee executed an agreement for sale of the said land to proforma defendant no. 4 on 14-5-1958 on receiving Rs. 500/- with the understanding that the sale deed will be executed subsequently on payment of balance consideration of Rs. 300/- and possession was delivered to defendant no. 4. Subsequently, on mutual consent between Gajendra and proforma defendant no. 4, there was oral exchange and defendant no. 4 possessed the disputed land, i. e. to say, plot nos. 33 and 34 and Gajendra possessed Ac. 1. 300/- and possession was delivered to defendant no. 4. Subsequently, on mutual consent between Gajendra and proforma defendant no. 4, there was oral exchange and defendant no. 4 possessed the disputed land, i. e. to say, plot nos. 33 and 34 and Gajendra possessed Ac. 1. 00 from plot no. 36. Such exchange took place in the month of June 1953. Defendant no. 4, subsequently transferred plot no. 36 to defendants 1 and 2 by two separate sale deeds on 12-3-1981 in respect of AO. 50 decimals each but actually in view of the earlier exchange defendants 1 and 2 took possession of plot nos. 33 and 34. It is, thus, apparent that defendants 1 and 2 are the owners in possession of plot nos. 33 and 34 and they have subsequently sold a portion of these two plots to defendant no. 3. In the alternative, these defendants claim that if it is found that plot nos. 33 and 34 belong to the plaintiffs, the title of defendants 1 to 3 be declared in respect of plot no. 36 and possession thereof be delivered to them. Proforma defendant no. 4 filed a written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed written statement to the counter claim made by defendants 1 to 3 wherein they denied about the allegations relating to oral exchange and disputed about the very existence of Panchanan Chatterjee and denied about the agreement supposed to have been executed by Panchanan Chatterjee in favour of proforma defendant no. 4. They claim that though their predecessor-in-interest had purchased Ac. 2. 73 decimals from out of plot no. 36, as a matter of fact their predecessor-in-interest remained in possession of entire plot no. 36 including the portion claimed by defendants 1 to 3 and it was further claimed that they had perfected their right by adverse possession. ( 4 ) THE trial Court on consideration of evidence found that the plaintiffs had right, title and interest in respect of the disputed plot nos. 33 and 34. The trial court further found that the plaintiffs were dispossessed in the year 1981 and discarded the story of exchange and held that the defendants had failed to prove their right in respect of plot no. 36. Accordingly, the suit was decreed and the counter claim was rejected. 33 and 34. The trial court further found that the plaintiffs were dispossessed in the year 1981 and discarded the story of exchange and held that the defendants had failed to prove their right in respect of plot no. 36. Accordingly, the suit was decreed and the counter claim was rejected. ( 5 ) IN this appeal, defendants 1 to 3 have assailed the finding of the trial court. It is first contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the oral evidence on record discloses that proforma defendant no. 4 was in possession of disputed plot nos. 33 and 34 from 1953 and, thereafter, after purchase the defendants are in possession on the basis of the oral exchange between defendant no. 4 and the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and, as such, the suit should be dismissed in respect of the aforesaid two plots. Proforma defendant no. 4, from whom defendants 1 and 2 claimed to have derived title has not supported their case and on the other hand has filed written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs. The trial Court has also discarded the story of the defendants regarding the agreement between Panchanan Chatterjee and defendant no. 4. Even though the finding of the trial court doubting the very existence of Panchanan Chatterjee may not be sustainable, however, the finding of the trial court doubting the genuineness of the agreement between Panchanan Chatterjee and defendant no. 4 appears to be correct. The story of oral exchange itself has not been reflected in the sale deeds in favour of defendants 1 and 2. If, in fact, pursuant to the agreement between Panchanan Chatterjee and defendant no. 4, the latter possessed a part of plot no. 36 and, thereafter, exchanged the said land with Gajendra, in normal course such thing should have been reflected in the sale deed executed by defendant no. 4 in favour of defendants 1 and 2. On the other hand, the recital in the sale deeds indicates as if Panchanan Chatterjee had sold plot no. 36 to defendant no. 4 (there is no reference to so-called agreement for sale) and purported to deliver possession of plot no. 36 to defendants 1 and 2. The evidence of the scribe, D. W. 3, indicates that the agreement (Ext. E) between Panchanan Chatterjee and defendant no. 4 had not been shown to him. Ext. 36 to defendant no. 4 (there is no reference to so-called agreement for sale) and purported to deliver possession of plot no. 36 to defendants 1 and 2. The evidence of the scribe, D. W. 3, indicates that the agreement (Ext. E) between Panchanan Chatterjee and defendant no. 4 had not been shown to him. Ext. 21, the certified copy of the order of the A. S. O. during the settlement proceeding indicates that though an agreement dated 14-5-1953 was produced, no plot number had been indicated in the said document whereas Ext. E specifically refers to plot no. 36. From all these, the existence of so-called agreement between Panchan Chatterjee and defendant no. 4 becomes very much doubtful. Even the story regarding the alleged oral exchange also appears to be discrepant. Though in the written statement it is claimed that defendant no. 4 and Gajendra for convenience mutually agreed for exchange and defendant no. 4 remained in possession of plot nos. 33 and 34, in evidence defendant no. 1 while being examined as D. W. 1 has stated thus :". . . . . PANCHANANA Chatterjee was possessing plot nos. 33 and 34 although he had purchased plot no. 36. This was because the Plot No. 36 was adjacent to plots in possession of plaintiff 1 and 3 who were possessing Plot No. 36 and in exchange had given possession of Plot No. 33 and 34 to Panchanan Chatterjee. . . . "such evidence clearly gives a death-knell to the case of exchange between Gajendra and defendant no. 4 and falsifies the claim made by the defendants. Since defendants 1 to 3 have failed to prove the right of proforma defendant no. 4 from whom they have allegedly purchased plot no. 36 and got possession of plot nos. 33 and 34, the decree of the trial court allowing the plaintiffs' suit and dismissing the counter claim is bound to be sustained. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.