JUDGMENT B.K. PATEL, J. Defendant no.1 is in appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge (now Civil Judge, Senior Division ), Bhadrak in T.S.No.86 of 1983-I. 2. Plaintiff is a registered partnership firm which filed the suit through its partners for declaration that the plaintiff is the original owner of the suit lands described under Schedules ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the plaint. Suit lands, situated on the shore of Bay of Bengal, were part of ex-intermediary estate of Parhi family. 3. Plaintiff’s case is that partners Nilasaila Nayak and Nilamadhab Nayak purchased ‘A’ schedule suit lands on the strength of registered sale deeds executed by 24 persons in whose favour said lands had been settled by the Zamidar. Suit lands under ‘B’ schedule were leased out in favour of partner Kanhu Charan Samal whereas suit lands under ‘C’ schedule were leased out in favour of partner Krushna Charan Jena by the Zamidar. Said lessees and vendors of above said Nilasaila Nayak and Nilamadhab Nayak were paying rent and in possession of the suit lands. After acquisition of the suit lands partners possessed the suit lands. In order to carry out rubber plantation partners formed a partnership and planted some rubber plants which did not grow due to ecological reasons. Thereafter, the partners carried out manufacture of salt over a part of the suit lands for a short period. It is asserted that the partners are raising paddy crops over the suit lands. It is further pleaded that since sea is receding towards east, more lands have been created adjacent to the suit lands. Attempt of the partners to get the suit lands recorded during major settlement operation as well as mutated by the Tahasildar, Basudevpur did not yield any result. In the meanwhile, partners have formed a registered partnership firm by inducting two other partners. It is alleged that defendant no.1, State of Orissa, has made symbolic delivery of possession in respect of a substantial portion of suit lands as described under Schedule ‘D’ of the plaint to defendant no.2, Orissa Maritime of Chilika Area Development Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter called as ‘the Corporation’) which has cast cloud on plaintiff’s title and ownership over the suit lands. It is asserted that defendant no.2 has never possessed the suit lands nor has manufactured salt on the same. 4. It is asserted that defendant no.2 has never possessed the suit lands nor has manufactured salt on the same. 4. Defendant no.1 filed written statement denying plaintiff’s claim of grant of lease of suit lands by the Zamidar. It is pleaded that the suit lands belong to the Government and accordingly recorded in the record of rights. It is further averred that the possession of lands measuring about 250 acres was delivered to the Corporation for manufacture of salt. Plaintiff was never in possession of the suit lands nor raised paddy or grew rubber plants. 5. In a separate written statement defendant no.2-Corporation has pleaded that the Corporation is owner in possession over the lands in question. It is pleaded that defendant no.1 delivered possession of the lands measuring area of 260 acres through the Tahasildar, Basudevpur to the defendant no.2 in the year 1979. Defendant no.2 placed pillars to demarcate the area, cleared bushes and shrubs, reclaimed the lands and developed the same for preparation of salt. Defendant no.2 has been preparing salt in an area extending about 100 acres out of the suit lands. 6. Considering the rival pleadings, following issues were settled by the trial court : “(i) Have the plaintiffs any cause of action ? (ii) Is the suit maintainable in the present form ? (iii) Is the plaintiffs firm a registered partnership firm as contemplated under Indian Partnership Act ? (iv) Is the suit barred by law of limitation ? (v) Is the plaintiff in possession of the disputed land? (vi) Is the suit for mere declaration maintainable in law ? (vii) Is the defendant no.2 Corporation in possession of the land ? (viii) Have the plaintiffs any right, title and interest in the suit property? (viii) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff are entitled ?” 7. In order to substantiate their cases plaintiffs examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and relied upon documents marked exts.1 to 60 whereas defendants examined D.Ws 1 to 6 and relied upon documents marked Exts.A to H. Upon appraisal of evidence on record the court below answered the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. 8. In order to substantiate their cases plaintiffs examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and relied upon documents marked exts.1 to 60 whereas defendants examined D.Ws 1 to 6 and relied upon documents marked Exts.A to H. Upon appraisal of evidence on record the court below answered the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. 8. The defendant no.1 has preferred this appeal mainly on the grounds that :- (1) the finding of the court below is illegal, arbitrary and against the weight of evidence, (2) the court below committed error in placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.3, and (3) the court below has completely ignored the evidence of the defendants that possession of the suit property was delivered to the defendant no.2. 9. Learned Government counsel supporting the grounds raised in the appeal memo contended that the court below failed to appreciate the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants that during the settlement operation in the year 1963-64 and 1973, suit lands were recorded as Abad Yogya Anabadi and Abad Ajogya Anabadi and an area of 124 acres was recorded under Rakhit Khata as the plaintiffs failed to show any document establishing their right over the suit property. It was urged that the documents on which the plaintiff relied upon had never seen the light of the day till filed in the trial court and as such the trial court should not have admitted or relied upon those documents to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the court below and urged that the judgment is supported by oral and documentary evidence and there is no scope to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. 11. Law is well settled that while dealing with first appeal the court is required to examine both facts and law involved in the case and keeping in view the said principle, it is necessary to examine whether the impugned judgment suffers from any illegality or infirmity which warrants interference. 12. The plaintiff brought the suit for declaration of right over the ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule lands which correspond to Touzi No.953, of which undisputedly the Parhi family was the intermediary as is evident from Ext.59 the C.S. record of right. 12. The plaintiff brought the suit for declaration of right over the ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule lands which correspond to Touzi No.953, of which undisputedly the Parhi family was the intermediary as is evident from Ext.59 the C.S. record of right. To establish the claim the plaintiff relied upon voluminous documents of which reference may be made to sale deeds Exts.13 to 35 through which the plaintiff purchased the suit lands from the original lease holders; and Exts.5 and 7 to 11 the lease documents through which the lease holders namely Kanhu Ch. Samal and Krushna Ch. Jena and some Bengalis had taken lease from the ex-Zamidar. Reliance was also placed on Ext.38 series, the rent receipts granted by the State to the Bengalis from whom Nilasaila and Nilamadhab purchased lands. All these documents further relate to Ext.56 series, the Ekpadia submitted by the ex-intermediary to the State after the estate abolition. Over and above, the plaintiff also placed reliance on Exts.39 to 44 which are the correspondences with various Government Departments and on rent receipts Ext.38 series which raise presumption of possession in favour of the plaintiff. This Court in Rabindranath Ojha –vs- State of Orissa : 2011(I) CLR 912 has held that rent is a necessary condition of tenancy. Rent receipts granted by the lesser are the best evidence so far as creation or existence of a tenancy is concerned. Consequently, after vesting of estate the State became the owner of the land free from all encumbrances and the transferee under the ex-intermediary was transposed to be as such with the same rights and obligation as he was subjected to under the ex-intermediary. It would be pertinent to mention that all these documents relate to a period when there was no controversy and Defendant no.2 was not in picture. Hence, the court below has not committed any error in placing reliance on those documents which support the claim of the plaintiff. Trial court has also placed reliance on the oral testimonies of the witnesses in support of the possession of the plaintiff of whom P.W.10 is none other than one of the original lease holders. He supported the plaintiff’s case that 150 acres of land was leased out to him and to Kanhu Ch.Samal by the Parhi Zamidari and he had paid Rs.15,000/- as salami. He supported the plaintiff’s case that 150 acres of land was leased out to him and to Kanhu Ch.Samal by the Parhi Zamidari and he had paid Rs.15,000/- as salami. Evidence of P.Ws.3 to 6 is also of much relevance inasmuch as P.W.3 was the Tahasildar during the ex-intermediary period who proved the lease documents vide Exts.5 and 7 to 11. It was elicited in course of his cross examination that Zamidar submitted Ekpadia. P.W.6 is another material witness who is one of the ex-intermediaries. He supports the case of the plaintiff about leasing out of the lands to Krushna Jena, Kanhu Samal and some Bengalis. P.Ws. 5 and 8 proved the sale deeds and testified their competence to depose in this case which has not been discredited in the cross-examination. So far as the evidence of P.W.1 and 10 is concerned, they are partners of the plaintiff and has supported the possession. P.W.2 is a boundary witness and as such is competent to say about the possession. Similar is the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 7. Evidence of none of these witnesses suffers from any infirmity so as to disbelieve plaintiff’s possession. 13. On the other hand, evidence of none of the witnesses examined on behalf of defendants inspires confidence inasmuch as none of these witnesses has any knowledge regarding state of affairs prior to possession alleged to have been delivered to defendant no.2. The court below having found their evidence to be not satisfactory has rightly not relied on their evidence. It appears from their evidence that they deposed about possession of D.W.2 from June 1979 only by way of delivery of symbolic possession. The court below has also considered the documents relied upon by the defendants to rightly conclude that by the time alleged possession was delivered to defendant no.2, the plaintiff had already acquired title on the basis of sale deeds and lease deeds. It may be stated at the cost of repetition that the factum of transfer by way of lease and thereafter by sale was testified by one of the ex-intermediaries who also supported plaintiff’s claim of delivery of possession, payment of rent to the Zamidars and submission of Expadia after abolition of Zamidari. 14. The defendants made feeble attempt to support their case by relying on the ROR. 14. The defendants made feeble attempt to support their case by relying on the ROR. The court below has rightly discarded the claim on the ground that ROR does not create or extinguish any right. Further, law is also well settled that settlement authorities have no jurisdiction or authority to decide disputed questions of title. 15. Thus, on appraisal of the evidence and materials on record upon reference to rival contention, the court below is found to have rightly decreed the suit and there being no infirmity or illegality, there is no scope to interfere with the findings of the lower court. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Impugned judgment and decree are confirmed. Parties shall bear their own costs.