JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. : The unsuccessful plaintiffs are in appeal against the judgment and decree of learned Subordinate Judge, Aska passed in Title Suit No.13 of 1980. The appellants as plaintiffs filed that suit for declaration of their right title over the suit land measuring an area of Ac.7.46 decimals apper¬taining to plot No.422 in Khata No.77/62 of village Badagada. Their case in substance was that the suit land was PARITYAKTA O BEDAKHALI rayati land standing in the name of the Zamindar, who leased out 2 acres out of the said land to plaintiff-appellant No.1 for 3 years and accordingly, the plaintiff No.1 cultivated that land and paid Rajbhag to the then Zamindar and obtained receipts; even after expiry of the 3 years lease, plaintiff No.1 continued to possess the aforesaid 2 acres of land on payment of Rajbhag and acquired occupancy right over that land. It was further averred that in the year 1948 the then Zamindar Kishore Prasad Singh died and on the 11th day of his obsequies ceremony his successor Zamindar Mohan Prasad Singh gifted the remaining part of the suit land measuring Ac.5.46 decimals to the plaintiff No.1, who was a Brahmin and family priest of the Zamindar’s family. In these process plaintiff No.1 possessed the entire Ac.7.46 decimals of the suit land. In the year 1952 Zamindar Mohan Prasad Singh was in need of money and he took Rs. 5,000/- from plaintiff No.1 with an assurance that he would execute sale deed in respect of the 2 acres of suit land which the plaintiff No.1 was in occupation as a lessee and in fulfillment of that promise he executed a sale deed on 24.9.1996 and accordingly plaintiff No.1 became the owner and person in possession of the entire suit land. In the year 1969 he sold a portion of the suit land to one Niladri Mohanty, but after the said sale, Niladri Mohanty leased that land to plaintiff No.1 and accordingly, plaintiff No.1 possessed the land as lessee giving Rajbhag to Niladri. In 1973 plaintiff No.2, who is the son of the plaintiff No.1 purchased the same land from Niladri Mohanty where after the plaintiffs together possessed this land. In the year 1974; they applied for mutation of the suit land and such mutation was allowed. The defendants later on filed review petition before the Tahasildar, which was rejected. In 1973 plaintiff No.2, who is the son of the plaintiff No.1 purchased the same land from Niladri Mohanty where after the plaintiffs together possessed this land. In the year 1974; they applied for mutation of the suit land and such mutation was allowed. The defendants later on filed review petition before the Tahasildar, which was rejected. They preferred appeal, but that appeal was also dismissed. When the matter stood thus, in the year 1975 the defendants with the assistance of his men reaped away paddy crops from the suit land for which the plaintiffs initiated a criminal case u/s. 379, I.P.C. and a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., which was subsequently converted to a pro¬ceeding u/s. 145, Cr.P.C. The criminal case ended in acquittal and the land remained attached with 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding. In that situation, to clear the doubt about their ownership over the suit land, the plaintiffs filed the suit asking for declaration of their occupancy right over the suit land. 2. The defendants filed joint written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs and pleaded inter alia that the suit land was the private land of the Zamindar and no part of it was ever given on lease or gift to plaintiff No.1. According to them, the plaintiffs never possessed the suit land as roiyat and never paid any Rajbhag and no receipt was granted to him. According to the defendants, the plaintiff No. was the general power of attor¬ney holder and Manager of Zamindar Mohan Prasad Singh and enjoyed absolute confidence of the Zamindar and taking advantage of such confidence plaintiff No.1 took the signatures of the Zamindar on blank papers and created the documents Exts. 1 & 3 and by clan¬destine means he also created rent receipts Ext. 2 series. They pleaded that in the year 1959 the estate vested in the State by incorporation of O.E.A. Act and thereafter some of the lands of the estate including the suit land were settled in the name of Zamindar family under Section 7 of the OEA Act. In that O.E.A. proceeding, the plaintiff No.1, as Manager of the Zamindar de¬posed that the suit land was in personal cultivating possession of the Zamindar. In that O.E.A. proceeding, the plaintiff No.1, as Manager of the Zamindar de¬posed that the suit land was in personal cultivating possession of the Zamindar. Defendants further averred that in the year 1965 there was a partition in the family of the Zamindar wherein the suit land along with some other lands fell to the share of de¬fendant No.5 and the partition deed was prepared under the direct supervision of plaintiff No.1, who also signed the said deed as witness. It was further pleaded that the sale transaction in favour of Niladri, repurchase of the same land by plaintiff No.2 from Niladri, the lease of that land by Niladri to plaintiff No.1 are all fake and fabricated transactions to create a colorable right of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The defendants spe¬cifically pleaded that they were not parties in the mutation proceeding filed by the plaintiffs in 1974 and the said proceed¬ing was carried behind their back and that all along they were in possession of the suit land for which the criminal Courts recog¬nized their right and possession and acquitted them. They also averred that mutation records do not create or extinguish any right title over the land and basing on mutation the plaintiffs have acquired no right over the suit land. They accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the suit with cost. 3. On the pleadings of the parties learned trial Court framed the following issues : (i) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land ? (ii) Whether the sale deed and the gift deed in favour of the plaintiffs by the husband of the defendant-1 dated 24.09.1966 and 28.11.1968 respectively are true, valid and binding on the de¬fendants ? (iii) To what relief ? 4. In support of their case the plaintiffs examined six witnesses and produced documents which were marked as Exts. 1 to 29. The defendants also examined as many as seven witnesses and produced documents which were marked as Exts. (iii) To what relief ? 4. In support of their case the plaintiffs examined six witnesses and produced documents which were marked as Exts. 1 to 29. The defendants also examined as many as seven witnesses and produced documents which were marked as Exts. A to U. On consid¬eration of these evidence, learned trial judge came to the con¬clusion that the suit lands were private lands of the Zamindar, Ext.1 is a spurious document manufactured behind the back of Zamindar-Mohan Prasad and his signature was obtained by misrepre¬sentation, oral evidence adduced by the plaintiffs with regard to the possession of the suit land since 1944 is not convincing, no reliance can be placed on Exts. 4, 5 & 6 series as the plaintiffs could have manufactured them, no title can be said to have passed to the plaintiffs under Exts. 1 and 3, the plaintiffs have no right title over the suit land and they were never in possession of the same as alleged and jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 39 of the OEA Act. With these findings he dismissed the suit on contest with cost. 5. Mr. B. H. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and decree is unsustainable as the same is contrary to the evidence and circumstances on record. He argued that the suit lands have been recorded as PARITYAKTA O BEDAKHALI land in the 1951 Settlement and the Zamindar did not challenge the said settlement entry, therefore, it was legally presumable that the suit lands were rayati lands and not private lands. He stated that in view of such presumption burden was on the defendants to prove that the suit lands were private lands, but no such rebuttal evidence was produced by them. He argued that learned trial Court erred in placing reliance on Ext.B, the deposition of plaintiff No.1 in O.E.A. Case Nos. 24 & 27 of 1959 to conclude that the suit lands were private lands of the Zamin¬dar as because there was no evidence that the lands involved in the above noted O.E.A. Cases also cover the suit lands. He argued that learned trial Court erred in placing reliance on Ext.B, the deposition of plaintiff No.1 in O.E.A. Case Nos. 24 & 27 of 1959 to conclude that the suit lands were private lands of the Zamin¬dar as because there was no evidence that the lands involved in the above noted O.E.A. Cases also cover the suit lands. He point¬ed out that the rent receipts Ext-2 series granted by the late Zamindar clearly revealed that the plaintiff No.1 had taken the land on lease and was paying Rajbhag to the Zamindar and the registered sale deed Ext.1 executed by the Zamindar, the mutation of these lands in favour of the plaintiffs clearly proved passing of title and possession of the land, but learned trial Court ignored these evidence and erroneously held that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit lands. Mr. Mohanty also chal¬lenged the finding of the trial Court on the issue of jurisdic¬tion stating that the settlement of the lands made by the Collec¬tor in favour of the defendants under the O.E.A. Act never barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 39 of the O.E.A. Act. To support his contention Mr. Mohanty relied on the cases of Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha v. State of Orissa & other, AIR 1962 S.C. 1912 ; V. Krishna Rao Dora & others v. Kotini Sita¬ram Dora & others, 39 (1973) CLT 975; Rajammal alias Sundarammal and others v. Sabapathi Pillai and another, 1945 P.C. 82, and Puro Goudo and others v. Shri Uday Pratap Singh Deo, AIR 1952 Orissa 223. 6. Mr. S.D. Das, learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned judgment and decree submitted that the suit lands had always been treated as home-farm and private lands of the zamindar and accordingly, these lands were settled in favour of the Zamindar in the O.E.A. proceeding. He stated that the plaintiff No.1, who was the Manager and Power of Attorney Holder of the Zamindar himself gave statement before the O.E.A. Court that the suit lands were in khas possession of the Zamindar and also supervised the partition which took place in the Zamin¬dar’s family and signed the partition document as a witness, thereby acknowledging that the suit lands were under the owner¬ship and possession of the Zamindar family and that it was allot¬ted to the share of the defendant No.5. Mr. Mr. Das indicated that nowhere in the evidence it is clear that plaintiff No.1 was the priest of the Zamindar family and, therefore, there was no occa¬sion for any gift of Ac.5.46 decimals of land to him during the obsequies ceremony of deceased-Zamindar. According to him, it is also unbelievable that plaintiff No.1 had the capacity to pay Rs.5,000/- to his own master towards the purchase of part of the suit land. Mr. Das, further pointed out that the plaintiff No.1 enjoyed absolute confidence of Zamindar Mohan Prasad Singh as he was the clerk and power of attorney holder of the Zamindar and taking advantage of such confidence he obtained the signatures of the Zamindar on various documents and plain papers and utilizing those papers he created documents like Exts. 1 to 3. According to Mr. Das, the mutation of the suit land was obtained by the plain¬tiffs behind the back of the defendants and such recording of the suit land does not create any right title in favour of the plain¬tiffs. He also argued that the documents of sale in favour of Niladri Mohanty and in favour of plaintiff No.2 were self-created documents which do not create any right or title. Mr. Das submit¬ted that learned trial Court rightly held that the suit was barred by Section 39 of the OEA Act as the order of the OEA Collector settling the lands in favour of the defendants was never challenged in OEA appeal and has assumed finality and such order is not open to challenge in the civil Court. 7. The plea of the appellants at the out st is that the suit land being PARITYAKTA O BEDAKHALI land was essentially royti land and therefore, the claim of the defendants that it was the private land of the Zamindar is untenable. It is argued that private lands of the intermediary were not leaseble lands and only royti lands were leasable and therefore had the suit lands been the private lands, it could not have been leased out to plaintiff No.1, as shown in Ext.2 series. Section 3 (16) of the Madras Estate Land Act (1 of 1908) defines royti land. The definition reads as follows; “Section 3(16) :- Ryoti land. The definition of ryoti land includes every land that can be cultivated other than those specially excepted under the Section. The excepted items are: (1) Private lands. Section 3 (16) of the Madras Estate Land Act (1 of 1908) defines royti land. The definition reads as follows; “Section 3(16) :- Ryoti land. The definition of ryoti land includes every land that can be cultivated other than those specially excepted under the Section. The excepted items are: (1) Private lands. (2) Beds and bund of tanks and of supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation channels; (3) Communal lands such as threshing-floor, cattle-stands, village-sites and other lands set apart for the common use of the villagers. The excepted items are: (1) Private lands. (2) Beds and bund of tanks and of supply, drainage, surplus or irrigation channels; (3) Communal lands such as threshing-floor, cattle-stands, village-sites and other lands set apart for the common use of the villagers. (4) Service inams pre-settlement and post settlement provid¬ed that in the case of post-settlement service inams they are wholly rent-free.” Section 3(10) of the said Act defines “Private Land” as follows :- “(10) ‘Private land’- (a) in the case of an estate within the meaning of sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) or (e) of clause (2), means the domain or home farm land of the landholder by whatever designation known, such as Kambattam, Khas, Sir or Pannai, and includes all land which is proved to have been cultivated as private land by the landholder himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before the commencement of this Act; and (b) in the case of an estate within the meaning of sub-clause (d) of clause (2), means- (i) the domain or home-farm of the landholder, by whatever designation known, such as kambattam, khas, sir or pannai; or (ii) land which is proved to have been cultivated as private land by the landholder himself, by his own servants or by hired la¬bour, with his own or hired stock, for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before the first day of July, 1908, provided that the landholder has retained the Kudivaram ever since and has not coverted the land into ryoti land; or (iii) land which is proved to have been cultivated by the landholder himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired stock, for a continuous period of twelve years immediately before the first day of November, 1933, provided that the landholder has retained the Kudivaram ever since and has not converted the land into ryoti land; or (iv) land, the entire kudivaram in which was acquired by the landholder before the first day of November, 1933 for valuable consideration from a person owning the Kudivaram but not the melvaram provided that the landholder has retained the kudivaram ever since and has not converted the land into ryoti land, and provided further that, where the Kudivaram was acquired at a sale for arrears of rent, the land shall not be deemed to be private land unless it is proved to have been cultivated by the landhold¬er himself, by his own servants or by hired labour, with his own or hired tock, for a continuous period of twelve years since the acquisition of the land and before the commencement of the Madras Estates Land (Orissa Second Amendment) Act, 1946" This Section essentially shows that land in khas possession of the landlord; either physically or through servants, hired labours for more than 12 years were private lands. The aforesaid definition read along with Chapter-X of the Land Tenures in Madras Presidency would also show that there is an initial pre¬sumption that all cultivable lands in an Estate are royti or Zeroity lands until the contrary is established. So if, through evidence and circumstances the intermediary can show that a particular land is under his khas possession either personally or through servants, hired labourers, for agriculture or for farm land or any private purpose, then such lands would be taken as the private land of the intermediary. 8. In the present case, the defendants claimed that the suit land was private land of the Zamindar family, whereas the plaintiffs asserted that it was royti land. Since initially presumption was that all cultivable lands of the estate are royti lands, the onus was on the defendants to produce evidence and circumstances to show that the suit land was in their khas pos¬session. In this regard, the defendants produced oral evidence about the khas possession and relied on circumstantial evidence and admission of plaintiff No.1. All the D.Ws. said that the suit land was in khas possession of Zamindar-Mohan Prasad Singh and he was cultivating those lands through his field servants. Some of them are such field servants. D.W.4 is the uncle’s son of plain¬tiff No.1. He also said that the suit land was under khas posses¬sion of the Zamindar and plaintiffs never possessed this land. The Manager of the Zamindar clearly narrated about the khas possession of the Zamindar and denied about grant of any lease in favour of plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.1 as P.W.4 claimed posses¬sion over the suit land and about sale of parts of this land to different persons. Some of these purchasers as P.Ws. stated about their possession over these lands. Thus, the oral evidence of the parties on the score of khas possession was in total contrast with each other. In such situation, it is safe to look into the documentary and circumstantial evidence. D.Ws.4, 6 and 7 stated that plaintiff No.1 was the power of attorney holder and Manager of the Zamindar and in that capacity he gave his evidence before the O.E.A. Collector in the proceeding filed by the defendants under Section 7 of the O.E.A. Act and in the statement he admit¬ted that the suit land and some other lands were under the khas possession of the Zamindar. In this regard certified copies of the statement of P.W.4 is available as Ext.B to show that plain¬tiff No.1 gave such statement before the O.E.A. Court. This evidence was given much after the alleged lease and gift in favour of the plaintiff No.1. That apart, document Ext.A is a registered deed of partition relating to the partition of proper¬ties of the Zamindar family. According to the statement of D.Ws. 6 and 7, plaintiff No.1 was an attesting witness to this parti¬tion document and the partition took place under his supervision. The signature of plaintiff No.1 on this document has been proved and it has not been denied by plaintiff No.1. This document shows that in the partition the suit land along with some other lands fell to the share of defendant No.5. If actually, the plaintiff No.1 had got the suit land through Exts. 1 & 3 and was in khas possession of the same, then he could not have endorsed the allotment of those lands to the share of defendant No.5 or given statement as noted in Ext.B. An argument is offered from the side of the appellants that plaintiff No.1 being an attesting witness to the document of partition was not supposed to know the con¬tents of the document. In this regard, reliance is placed on the cases in Rajammal alias Sundarammal and others v. Sabapathi Pillai and another (supra) and K. Sitaram Dora and another v. V. Krishna Rao Dora and others, 36 (1970) CLT 636. It is true that an attesting witness is not bound to know the contents of the document. But this proposition cannot have universal application. Before applying this proposition the fact and circumstance of the case has to be taken into consideration. In the present case, plaintiff No.1 was the power of attorney holder and Manager of defendant No.5 for more than 20 years (as stated in Ext.B) and evidence shows that he played active role in management of the properties of the Zamindari. He even claimed before the OEA Collector that he was looking after the cultivation of the lands of the Zamindar. In such a situation, it cannot be belied that plaintiff No.1 signed the partition deed without knowing the contents thereof. The above said evidence and circumstance thus show that the suit land along with some other lands were in khas possession of the Zamindar. 9. In such a situation, it cannot be belied that plaintiff No.1 signed the partition deed without knowing the contents thereof. The above said evidence and circumstance thus show that the suit land along with some other lands were in khas possession of the Zamindar. 9. In the present case, the plaintiffs claim that the suit land was royti land and out of it 2 acres were leased out to plaintiff No.1, who remained in possession on the same and gave Rajbhag to the Zamindar. The defendants on the other hands claimed that the suit land was private land of the Zamindar and it was never leased out to the plaintiff No.1. Though all cul¬tivable lands under the estate is to be prima facie presumed as Royti land, the defendants by adducing evidence and circumstances noted above have dispelled this initial presumption. In that situation, when the plaintiff No.1 claimed that he got 2 acres out of the suit land on lease and remained in possession of the same pursuant to such lease the burden was on him to prove the genuineness of the lease and his possession over the said lease land. No document of lease was produced. The plaintiff’s relied on rent receipt-Ext.2 series, which the defendants claim as fake and fabricated. Ext.2 series are alleged rent receipt regarding payment of Rajbhag by the plaintiffs for the suit land. In these receipts, there is no specific indication that the payments were for the suit land or any part thereof. D.W.7, the son of late Mohan Prasad Singh and his Manager-D.W.6 stated that plaintiff No.1 was the power of attorney holder and also manager of the Zamindar and was enjoying confidence of the Zamindar and in the capacity of Manager he was in possession of documents and records of the Zamindari and taking advantage of his position, he ob¬tained signatures of the Zamindar on blank papers and documents. Plaintiff No.1 admitted that the he was the power of attorney holder and Clerk of Zamindar defendant No.5 and was looking after the lands and properties of the Zamindar. In such backdrop, it was quite possible on the part of the plaintiff No.1 to create documents such as Ext.2 series. Submission was made about non-production of the lease register by the defendants. Some lease registers like Exts. D and R have been produced. In such backdrop, it was quite possible on the part of the plaintiff No.1 to create documents such as Ext.2 series. Submission was made about non-production of the lease register by the defendants. Some lease registers like Exts. D and R have been produced. D.W.6 the subse¬quent Manager of defendant No.5 stated that most of the records of the Zamindari have been surrendered to the Tahasildar and hat most of the records showing accounts of the suit lands were stolen at Cuttack. In that situation, the defendants were not expected to produce all the lease registers in order to show that lease of the suit land was not granted to the plaintiff No.1. In fact in none of the available lease and rent registers the lease in favour of plaintiff No.1 has been noted. In that situation, much reliance cannot be placed on Ext.2 series and they cannot be accepted as genuine documents. 10. The plaintiffs claimed that at a subsequent stage defendant No.5 sold the aforesaid 2 acres of land under Ext.1 and also executed an unregistered gift deed, Ext.3 for the rest Ac.5.46 decimals and through these documents he derived title over the suit lands. According to the plaintiff No.1, defendant No.5 on receipt of Rs.5,000/- executed a registered sale deed for 2 acres of land under Ext.1 and gifted away Ac.5.46 decimals of land to plaintiff No.1 on the 11th day of obsequies ceremony of the previous Zamindar in the year 1948 as because plaintiff No.1 was a Brahmin and family priest of the Zamindar family and later on executed the gift deed Ext.3. The genuineness of these docu¬ments was challenged by the defendants. First of all, the alleged gift was in the year 1948, but the unregistered gift deed was executed in 1960. No cogent explanation is available to explain the delay. The value of the lands noted in the gift deed is admittedly more than Rs.100/- and therefore, document of gift was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act. None of the attesting witness to the gift deed was examined to prove its execution. So the document was inadmissible in evidence. The contents of Ext.3 are also contrary to the evidence of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the land covered under Ext.3 adjoins to the west of the land covered under Ext.1. None of the attesting witness to the gift deed was examined to prove its execution. So the document was inadmissible in evidence. The contents of Ext.3 are also contrary to the evidence of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the land covered under Ext.3 adjoins to the west of the land covered under Ext.1. But in Ext.3 it is noted that the adjoining towards East lies the land of the Zamindar in the same plot. This would indicate that the land covered under Ext.1 was not in possession of the plaintiffs when Ext.3 was executed. Had he been in possession of the land noted in Ext.1 then his land would have been mentioned as the eastern adjoining land. Moreover, D.Ws. 4 to 7 clearly said that plain¬tiff No.1 was not the family priest of the of the Zamindar family and there was never any ‘Bhumidan’ on the 11th day of the obse¬quies ceremony of the late Zamindar. So far as Ext.1 is con¬cerned, the same does not appear to be a document free from suspicion. First of all, the stamp papers used in this document were purchased in different places on different dates. Two of the stamp papers were purchased at Berhampur, but these papers do not carry continuous serial number. One stamp paper appears to have been purchased at Chhatrapur. The middle stamp paper contains a signature of Mohan Prasad dated 25.09.1966, although the stamp papers are said to have been purchased on 24.09.1966. The first and second stamp papers were signed on 23.09.1966. These dates have been subsequently corrected to show that the signatures were given on 25.09.1966. Some explanations have been given by P.W.4 which are not convincing. The attesting witness and scribe have not given date on which they signed Ext.1. One of the attesting witnesses, P.W.2, spoke about attestation of the document, but his evidence is inconsistent and unreliable. He said that one Sankar Tarai scribed Ext.1, which was not correct. He said that he had gone to the house of Mohan Prasad at Berhampur with anoth¬er man and there he became an attesting witnesses to Ext.1. In cross-examination, he admitted that none else signed on Ext.1 in his presence. P.W.4, the plaintiff No.1 said that Ext.1 was executed on 24.09.1966 and on that day Mohan Prasad signed that document, which is not correct as indicated above. In cross-examination, he admitted that none else signed on Ext.1 in his presence. P.W.4, the plaintiff No.1 said that Ext.1 was executed on 24.09.1966 and on that day Mohan Prasad signed that document, which is not correct as indicated above. P.W.4 also admitted that he has no knowledge when the document was scribed and signed by the scribe. It is clear from the evidence of the parties that plaintiff No.1 was the power of attorney and manager of Zamindar-Mohan Prasad. In such capacity, it was possible and probable for plaintiff No.1 to obtain signatures of Mohan Prasad on documents and paper. This aspect coupled with the inherent defects in Exts. 1 and 3 suggests that the documents were not genuine and no right and title passed to the plaintiff No.1 through the document Exts.1 and 3. 11. It is argued from the side of the appellants that Ext.1, the registered sale deed, was duly acted upon and is not a fake document is evident from the fact that the plaintiffs remained in possession of that land and subsequently sold it to one Niladri Mohanty on 10.12.1969 and this Niladri Mohanty sold it to plaintiff No.2 on 28.04.1973 and mutation of this land was also effected in favour of the plaintiff No.2. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff No.1 executed the registered sale deed Ext.4 in favour of Niladri Mohanty, but on the own saying of the plaintiffs the said purchaser never took possession on of the suit land and plaintiff No.1 possessed it as lessee for three years and thereafter plaintiff No.2 got the sale deed Ext.6 from Niladri Mohanty for the said land and then both plaintiffs pos¬sessed it. This peculiar and unusual arrangement indicate that the plaintiffs are not coming with clean hands and the documents such as sale deeds, mutation records of 2 acres of land were created in collision with Niladri Mohanty to generate a legal right over that land. Besides the plaintiffs had filed 144 & 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings and a case under Section 379, I.P.C. against the defendant No.5 and others, but the case under Section 379, I.P.C. ended in acquittal and the lands remained attached in 145, Cr.P.C. proceedings which suggests that the claim of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands is not free from doubt. The sale deeds in favour of other purchasers, the recent cist re¬ceipts are of no avail in this regard. 12. So far as the mutation of the suit lands in favour of the appellants is concerned, fact remains that the mutation proceeding was not filed soon after the transaction, but was filed only after the death of the Zamindari-Mohan Prasad Singh. The defendants were never parties in the mutation proceeding and that as soon as they learnt about it they filed review petition and appeal. In the above noted situation and in the face of the finding that the documents Exts.1 and 3 were not reliable docu¬ments, the mutation order will not create any right title of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 13. Admittedly, in OEA proceeding No.24/27/59 the lands in the possession of the Zamindar family were settled in their favour. It is also admitted that in that proceeding the present appellant No.1 gave his statement as a witness on oath that the lands noted in the petition are in the khas possession of the Zamindar family. He clearly stated that local name of the suit land is PACHA KIARI. This land forms part of the lands settled in favour of the Zamindar family. So there was no scope to say that the suit lands were not part of the land which was settled in favour of the Zamindar family in the OEA proceeding. The order of settlement passed in the OEA proceeding was never challenged in any higher forum and has assumed finality. There is also no allegation that in the OEA proceeding the authority did not act in conformity with the prescribed judicial procedure or did not follow the provisions of the Act. As has been said in the case of V. Krishna Rao Dora & others v. Kotini Sitaram Dora and others (supra), the Collector under the O.E.A. Act has got exclusive jurisdiction to determine the factum of Khas possession of an intermediary on the date of vesting and that the decision of the Collector is final subject to appeal and other remedies provided under the Statute and cannot be questioned in Civil Court. When the Collector determined the factum of khas possession of the Zamindar family and when there was no material to show that the Collector did not comply with the provisions of the Act or did not act in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure and when there was no appeal against the order, the Civil Court cannot entertain a suit to examine the correctness of the order relating to nature of land, khas possession and settle¬ment. Learned trial Court, therefore, rightly held that Section 39 of the O.E.A. Act operates as bar to the suit of the plain¬tiffs. In such situation the ratios laid by the apex Court in the case of Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha v. State of Orissa & others (supra) and this Court in V. Krishna Rao Dora (supra) that royit land is not touched by vesting notification under the O.E.A. Act is of no help to the appellants, particularly because the O.E.A. Collector after due enquiry found the suit land to be the private land in khas possession of the Zamindar family and the evidence in the present case also show that it was private land in the khas possession of the Zamindar family. 14. The foregoing discussions show that the judgment of learned trial Court is in accordance with the evidence on record and the settled principles of law. The same is, therefore, con¬firmed and the appeal is dismissed on contest with cost. Appeal dismissed.