JUDGMENT B. P. DAS, J. — This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Civil Jude (Senior Division), Talcher, in L.A. Misc. Case No.15 of 1997 on a reference made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.C.L., Angul, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, deciding a dispute between the awardees, i.e., respondent No.1 -Arna Sahu and the appellant-Indramani Pradhan, as to apportionment of the amount of compensation award¬ed in respect of a structure on the acquired land measuring Ac. 0.03 appertaining to plot No.604 under Khata No.23 in Balugan mauza, which is described as disputed structure. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows : An area of Ac.0.62 of land appertaining to different plots including the disputed plot No.604 covered by Khata No.23 of Balugan mauza was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Offi¬cer, M.C.L., Angul, for a public purpose, namely, a coal mining project. Prior to the acquisition, the aforesaid lands stood recorded in the names of Tanu Sahu, Nityananda Pradhan, Daitari Pradhan, Manti Pradhan, Dhaneswar Pradhan, Dibakar Pradhan, Krushna Ch. Pradhan, Chandini Pradhan, Kamini Pradhan, Indu Pradhan, Khajuri Pradhan, Gunjara Pradhan, Saiba Pradhan and Arna Sahu. Except the land under disputed plot No. 604, the other lands acquired were agricultural lands. The disputed plot was a homestead land and a structure existed on the same at the time of acquisition. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award of Rs.30,133/- in respect of the acquired lands including the land under the disputed plot in favour of the aforesaid claimants whereas he awarded Rs.2,33,875/- for the structure standing on the disputed plot in favour of Indramani Prahdan, son of Saiba Pradhan. Re¬spondent No.1-Arna Sahu put forth her claim over the amount awarded in respect of the structure on the disputed plot saying that the said structure belonged to her father and she being the only daughter inherited the same after the death of her father. The claim of the awardee-Indramani Pradhan was that the disputed structure was owned and possessed by him prior to the acquisition and as such he was entitled to the compensation awarded for the disputed structure. The claim of the awardee-Indramani Pradhan was that the disputed structure was owned and possessed by him prior to the acquisition and as such he was entitled to the compensation awarded for the disputed structure. Considering the rival claims, the Special Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 30 of the Act to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talcher, to decide the dispute between Arna Sahu and Indramani Pradhan as to the apportionment of the award in respect of the structure on the disputed land. 3. Before the learned Civil Judge, both the claimants adduced only oral evidence in support of their respective cases. While appellant-Indramani Pradhan and Gadadhar Pradhan were examined on behalf of claimant petitioner Nos.13 and 15 as P.Ws.1 and 2, on behalf of claimant-petitioner Nos.1 and 14 three wit¬nesses, namely Saiba Pradhan, Smt. Arna Sahu (respondent No.1), and Smt. Tanu Pradhan, were examined as P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 respec¬tively. 4. The reference Court after scanning the oral evidence adduced by the parties has come to hold that the claimant-Arna is entitled to get the entire compensation amount awarded for the structure and the land measuring an area Ac.0.03 under plot No.604 along with their reliefs. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Court below, Indramani Pradhan in whose favour initially the award was made has pre¬ferred this appeal on the ground that there was no evidence before the reference Court to come to the conclusion that the disputed land and structure belonged to Suka Pradhan, i.e., the father of Arna, and she was residing in the said house till his death and the findings of the Court below are contrary to the evidence on record because there was ample evidence to show that the present appellant-Indramani was in possession of the disputed land. 6. In this connection learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the findings of the Court below and to the evidence of Indramani Pradhan (P.W.1) wherein he categorically stated that he had constructed eight rooms and was in possession of the same for the last thirty years. He further stated that the rooms were having asbestos and tile roof. In this connection learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the findings of the Court below and to the evidence of Indramani Pradhan (P.W.1) wherein he categorically stated that he had constructed eight rooms and was in possession of the same for the last thirty years. He further stated that the rooms were having asbestos and tile roof. The learned counsel also drew my attention to the evidence of Gadadhar Pradhan (P.W.2) who, while corroborating the evidence of Indramani, stated that Indramani constructed a pucca house, which consisted of eight rooms, and he was staying in that house for the last thirty years. Learned counsel for the appellant further wanted to take advantage from the evidence of Arna Sahu, (respondent No.1), who was examined as P.W.2 for claimant Nos.1 and 14, wherein she stated that” ... ... I constructed a pucca house with tile and asbestos roof on that land since we used to come to my fa¬ther’s village to stay and look after cultivation left by my father.” In her cross-examination, she stated that “... ... I have been staying in village Banda since the date of my marriage ... ...” Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No.1-Arna Sahu during her cross-examination could not say anything regarding the size of the house or rooms, the name of the mason, who constructed the house, and the boundary of the acquired land so also the plot No. and the khata No. Taking all these evidence together, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court below has erred both in fact and law in allowing the claim of Arna Sahu. That apart, the appellant has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. in this Court for acceptance of a document said to be a sale deed as additional evidence. From the said document it transpires that Arna Sahu sold the disputed land to Indramani for a consideration of Rs.310/-. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 heavily relied upon the evidence of Saiba Prahdan, who is no other than the father of appellant-Indramani. The said Saiba Pradhan in his evidence stated as follows : “ I am one of the awardees of this case. Other awardees are from my village. Awardee Indramani Pradhan is my son. The acquired land situated in village Balugan. Our ancestral house was partitioned amongst my brothers. So also the landed properties. The said Saiba Pradhan in his evidence stated as follows : “ I am one of the awardees of this case. Other awardees are from my village. Awardee Indramani Pradhan is my son. The acquired land situated in village Balugan. Our ancestral house was partitioned amongst my brothers. So also the landed properties. Our shares in the homestead were sold to one Tikan Pradhan and thereafter we shifted to other place. But Suka did not sell his share and he constructed a house there and continues to occupy the same. After his death, Arna his daughter is in occupation of that homestead and house. 2. The land of Suka extends to Ac.0.3 decimals. The land and house is going to be acquired and Arna is entitled to receive the compensation for the land and the house on it. It is incorrect to say that Indra got the land and the house in his share in a partition amongst my sons. I had already sold my share in that ancestral house and as such there is no scope for him to have a share on that acquired land. About Rs.30,000.00 has been awarded for acquisition of land separately in this case and as a cosharer I, Pandari, Gaji, Bichha, Banshi, and Suka each entitled to 1/6th share of that land where compensation awarded towards the house should go to Arna. In this cross-examination, he sated “... ... ... ... ... It is not a fact that Indramani is entitled to receive the compensation towards the house. xxx xxx xxx” 8. At the outset it is made clear that so far as compensation towards the disputed land is concerned, respondent No.1-Arna Sahu had already received the same. This is not disput¬ed by any of the parties. The dispute is over the amount awarded for the structure over the disputed land. Indramani, who was examined as P.W.1, in his evidence stated that :- “... ... ... I am in occupation of the suit land having my residential house. The land belonged to my father. My father distributed his landed properties amongst me and my other three brothers and the acquired land fell to my share. 2. I have constructed 8 numbers of rooms and I am in posses¬sion for last 30 years. ... ... ... ... I am in occupation of the suit land having my residential house. The land belonged to my father. My father distributed his landed properties amongst me and my other three brothers and the acquired land fell to my share. 2. I have constructed 8 numbers of rooms and I am in posses¬sion for last 30 years. ... ... ... “ The main plea of the appellant, as it appears from his own evidence, is that the disputed property belonged to his father and he was in possession of the same as the same fell to his share in the partition effected amongst his brothers. At this point, it would be worthwhile to have a look at the document which was sought to be introduced as additional evidence. In the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C., it is sated that the document which is sought to be introduced as additional evidence is an unregistered agreement dated 19.10.1973 for sale of the disputed property and the said document could not be produced before the Court below as the same was misplaced and could not be found for which the appellant could not produce th same before the Court below at the time of hearing. The recitals of the said document in the opening line describe the document as ‘Chukti Patra’ (agreement). But at the same time the recitals further stated that the property was sold for a consideration of Rs.310/-. The said document is quite silent about delivery of possession of the property and nothing has been done in terms of the aforesaid document as the document is of the year 1973 and purportedly authorized Indramani to record the said property in his name in the attestation camp. If the document is accepted, then it belies the story of the appellant that he constructed the house since thirty years and the stand of the appellant that his father in the partition amongst his brothers allotted the land in his favour. That too, the document being an unregistered document and the consideration money indicated therein being Rs.310/-, its registration was compulsory under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 49 of the Registration Act. Therefore, the said unregistered document is not admissible as evidence of any transaction affecting any immovable property comprised therein and it does not affect any such immovable property. Therefore, the said unregistered document is not admissible as evidence of any transaction affecting any immovable property comprised therein and it does not affect any such immovable property. (See AIR 1969 SC 1316 : Raghunath v. Kedarnath). So I am not inclined to admit the aforesaid document as an additional evidence. That apart, if the said document is treated to be an agreement, as the opening line of the said document reveals, it belies all the pleas taken by the appellant before the Court below which is one of the reasons for which I am not inclined to admit the said document as an additional evidence. 9. As it appears, the appellant and the respondents are the descendants of their common ancestor, namely, Kalpa. At this stage, it would be profitable to have a look at the genealogy of the parties, which is as follows : Kalpa Pandari Guji Bichha Bansi Saiba Suka Tanu Nitai Daitari Arna Dhani Diba Krushna Son Son Son Indramani Kamini Indu Khujari All the sons of late Kalpa Pradhan are dead except Saiba, who is the uncle of respondent No.1-Arna and father of Indrama¬ni. There is no reason as to why this Court will not believe the evidence of Saiba which is clear and unambiguous as regards the ownership of the land and structure in question. Saiba Pradhan categorically stated in his evidence that Suka, father of Arna, did not sell his share and he constructed the house thereon and continued to occupy the same and after his death, his daughter-Arna was in occupation of the said homestead. Nothing was brought out from the mouth of this witness during his cross-examination to dislodge the statement made in chief. There is also no dispute to the fact that Arna is the only daughter who inherited the property of her father-Suka. There is no semblance of any right and title of the appellant over the said land except the bald statement that the property was under the possession of his fa¬ther-Saiba and came to him by virtue of a partition and the latter plea that the property was sold to him under an unregis¬tered document, which was sought to be introduced as additional evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly drew my attention to the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in O.J.C. No.5606 of 1996 which was filed by present respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly drew my attention to the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in O.J.C. No.5606 of 1996 which was filed by present respondent No.1. The said judgment is reported in 1999 (I) OLR 237 : Smt. Arna Sahu v. General Manager (Talcher Area), M.C.L. The aforesaid writ petition was filed for a direction to the opposite parties therein for whose benefits the land was acquired to provide one member of the family of respondent No.1 with an employment. My attention was drawn to paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment where it was stated that award had been made so far as the irri¬gated land is concerned and there was also an award so far as the homestead was concerned in terms of the purported agreement for sale and reference case was pending to decide the question of title and/or apportionment of the award as the situation may permit in accordance with law. Taking a cue from this, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the aforesaid writ petition reference was made to the document which was sought to be introduced as additional evidence. The aforesaid document, ac¬cording to the learned counsel for the appellant, is for sale of the land. But the opening line of the said document bears the recitals of an agreement. This document does not indicate any¬thing as regards construction over the same. It is the admitted case of the appellant that this document could not be produced before the Court below as the same was not available. So, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the said document was referred in the aforesaid judgment is absolutely incorrect and cannot be accepted. 10. In view of the facts narrated above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talcher, in L.A. Misc. Case No.19/97 requiring interference by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.