JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard further-argument and the Second Appeal is disposed of in the following manner: The disputed area is Ac.0.15 cents from Survey No. 350/1 under Patta No. 627 of mouza-Kodala. That is a big plot measuring an area of Ac.14.17 cents of land. Defendant No. 4, who is the father of the Plaintiff, claims to have been settled with Ac.1.60 cents of land from the said land. According to the case of the Plaintiff, Ac.0.80 cents of land was settled in favour of Defendant No. 4 in 1940, Ac.0.50 cents and Ac.0.24 cents of lands were settled in favour of Defendant No. 4 in the year 1941 and 1948 respectively and Ac.0.06 cents were purchased by Defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 4 was an employee of ex-ruler and after merger, he became a legal practitioner. Plaintiff is also a legal practitioner. Plaintiffs claim that Ac.0.80 cents was settled in favour of Defendant No. 4 under Ext..A, Ac.0.39 cents were settled by the Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 2, a contractor, made construction of the office of Notified Area Council, Kodala (Defendant No. 1) over an area of Ac. 0.15 cents of land giving rise to the cause of action for institution of the suit. Defendant No. 4 not only supported the claim of the Plaintiff but also tendered oral and documentary evidence in furtherance of the claim of the Plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 filed written statements denying the title and/or possession of the Defendant No. 4 or the Plaintiff over the suit land and claiming the same to be Government property and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the suit. Their contention in the written statements is that Defendant No. 4 together with the Plaintiff intended to make fake claim over Ac.0.80 cents of land covered by Ext.A. They also adduced oral and documentary evidence. 2. On the basis of a rival pleadings, Trial Court framed the following issues: i. Whether the Plaintiff has title over the suit land? ii. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to recover posSession of the suit land? iii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the damages claimed? iv. Whether the suit is maintainable? v. To what relief? 2. On the basis of a rival pleadings, Trial Court framed the following issues: i. Whether the Plaintiff has title over the suit land? ii. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to recover posSession of the suit land? iii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the damages claimed? iv. Whether the suit is maintainable? v. To what relief? In answering Issue No. 1, Trial Court held that Ext.A is a fabricated document, which is apparent on the existence of several documentary evidence including the order of settlement in favour of Defendant No. 4 with respect to Ac.0.74 cents of land only. In view of settlement of the dispute by Defendant No. 4 with private school, in which the statement of Defendant No. 4 clearly reveals that he could not have a claim over the disputed plot or the land under Ext.A, and therefore, the Defendant No. 4 did not acquire any title or posSession over the disputed land to transfer the same to the Plaintiff and consequently, he decided issue No. 2 by rejecting the prayer for recovery of possession, so also issue No. 3 in refusing to grant any damages. As against that judgment dated 22.08.1983 of Learned Subordinate Judge, Aska in Title Suit No. 78 of 1981, Plaintiff filed the Title Appeal. Learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Ganjam disposed of the same on 22.12.1984 vide title Appeal No. 35 of 1984 (T.A. 48/83 GDC). On reappreciation of evidence, Learned 1st Addl. District Judge recorded concurrent finding and also held that the claim of settlement asserted by the Defendant No. 4 together with the Plaintiff has no factual support and that is also contrary to the position of law in Section 3(16) of Madras Estates Land Act (I of 1908) and the ratio in the case of State of Orissa represented by Collector Ganjam Chatrapur and Anr. v. Chandrama Mohanty and Ors.; 1974 (1) C.W.R 453 and Subarna Paridani Vs. The State of Orissa, . 3. On 21.03.1985, the Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Learned Lower Appellate Court erred in law in holding that the Patta of the year 1940 Ext.A was invalid? 2. Whether the Learned Courts below erred in law in holding that title in respect of the suit land was not conveyed to the Defendant No. 4 (Respondent No. 4,) under Ext.A ? and 3. Whether the Learned Lower Appellate Court erred in law in holding that the Patta of the year 1940 Ext.A was invalid? 2. Whether the Learned Courts below erred in law in holding that title in respect of the suit land was not conveyed to the Defendant No. 4 (Respondent No. 4,) under Ext.A ? and 3. Whether the Learned Courts below erred in law in finding that the Plaintiff and before him the Defendant No. 4 were never in possession of the suit land? It is argued by the Appellant that in absence of proper proof that Ext.A was a fabricated document, such presumption drawn by the Courts below is non-sustainable. Appellant's further contention is that authenticity of Ext. A has not been dislodged by the Defendants 1 and 3 either by oral or documentary evidence. According to the Plaintiff, in view of aforesaid circumstance, Ext.A holds to be a valid document, granting the lease of the suit land in favour of the Defendant No. 4 for a period of 20 years and since by the date of merger Defendant No. 4 was in possession of the said land, therefore, by operation of law in the Estate Abolition Act, he is deemed to have been settled with that land. 4. The aforesaid argument is attractive but does not bear any substance, inasmuch as, the very existence of Ext.A as a genuine one, was doubted by the Courts below with due reference to the various circumstances emerging from the document and conduct of the Defendant No. 4 in settlement of dispute in the Civil Courts with respect to claim of a private school and apart from that decision for construction over disputed area being resolved in the N.A.C. during his incumbency and participation as a councilor. There is no lacuna on such factual finding recorded by the Courts below. Under such circumstance, this Court finds no reason to take a different view regarding non?genuineness or invalidity of Ext.A. Once that be so, the above quoted substantial questions framed by this Court are bound to be against the Appellant and consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed with cost all throughout against the Plaintiff and in favour of Defendant No. 1. Hearing fees be assessed at contested scale. 5. This Court appreciates the able assistance provided by Mr. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed with cost all throughout against the Plaintiff and in favour of Defendant No. 1. Hearing fees be assessed at contested scale. 5. This Court appreciates the able assistance provided by Mr. P.V. Ramdas, Learned Senior Counsel, who as per order No. 37, had been requested to appear as amicus curiae and to address the Court on the position of law. Second Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed