JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the Judgment & decree passed by the Learned Sub-Judge, Nayagarh in O.S. No.67 of 1984 (as it was then), the State being the unsuccessful Defendant has preferred the appeal. For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arranged in the Trial Court. 2. Plaintiffs case- Land measuring Ac.37.36 dec from out of Plot No.156 under Khata No.10 of Mauza-Sanahamara was purchased by him from Rani Smt. Saubhagyamanjari Devi. It is claimed that the Plaintiff having been delivered with the possession of the said land continued to possess & also was making payment of rent. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that land under Sabak Plot No.156 covered an area of 306 Acres, was a bushy jungle. So, he reclaimed the purchased land to the above extent & made it fit for cultivation. It is also his case that he out of his purchased land sold AC.16.50 dec in total to different persons & remained in possession of rest land of AC.20.86 dec. It is said that the Defendant forcibly constructed a road covering an area of AC.1.50 dec: on this plot of land & from within his purchased land. Thereafter, in the current settlement, an area of AC.14.47 dec. is said to have been recorded in the name of the Plaintiff & the rest has been recorded in the name of Defendant-State of Orissa. The Plaintiff claims to have filed an objection before the Settlement Authority, which went unheeded. Therefore, the suit has been filed after issuing notice as required under Section 80, C.P.C. The prayer in the suit is for declaration of right, title & interest of the Plaintiff over the suit land measuring AC.20.36 dec & for necessary direction to the Defendant for undertaking the correction in the settlement record & map accordingly. 2. (SIC) The Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. It is stated that in the year 1932-33 during the settlement of Ex-State of Nayagarh so far as village Sanahamera is concerned, land measuring AC.82.64 dec has been recorded in the name of Rani Smt. Saubhagyamanjari Devi, the wife of the Ex-Ruler. It is next stated that the Plaintiff had purchased 25 acres under the registered sale deed dated 18.08.1968 & AC.12.36 dec under another registered sale deed bearing the same date. It is next stated that the Plaintiff had purchased 25 acres under the registered sale deed dated 18.08.1968 & AC.12.36 dec under another registered sale deed bearing the same date. The lands covered under the two sale deeds is from Plot No.156. It is further stated that as against the purchased land of AC.37.36 dec the Plaintiff got possession with respect to AC.33.77 dec & it is said that he was never in possession with respect to the balance land said to have been purchased by him at any point of time. Thus, it is averred that the Settlement Authority have rightly recorded the land measuring AC.17.27 dec in favour of the Plaintiff when the admitted case of the Plaintiff with regard to sell of AC.16.50 dec is taken into consideration. In para 7 of the written statement to as per the Defendant's case a total picture has been given as regards recording of the land in the name of Plaintiff while specifically pleading that over the land of AC.1.30 dec. recorded in the name of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has no right, title interest or possession & that it was never in his possession. In the concluding portion, it is admitted that an area of AC.1.50 dec has been recorded as 'Sarbasadharana' being used as REO road & the rest AC.1.30 dec has been rightly recorded in the name of the Defendant whereupon the Plaintiffs right, title, interest & possessi0':1 has been denied. With the above pleading the prayer has been made to non-suit the Plaintiff. 3. The Trial Court framing five issues has gone to record the evidence in support of the case of the respective parties. Plaintiff has examined two witnesses including himself as P. W.2 & has proved the sale deeds Exts.1 & 2 by which he had purchased the land of AC.3. 73 dec., rent receipts Ext.3 series, R.O.R. Ext.4, Commissioner's report Ext.5 & the village map Ext.6. The Defendant has neither adduced any oral evidence nor has tendered any document for being admitted any evidence on their behalf. 4. On going through the issues, I find that the vital issue is Issue No.4 which concerns with the principal prayer made in the plaint. The direction for correction of the R.O.R. is dependant upon the finding as regards the right, title & interest & possession of the Plaintiff. 4. On going through the issues, I find that the vital issue is Issue No.4 which concerns with the principal prayer made in the plaint. The direction for correction of the R.O.R. is dependant upon the finding as regards the right, title & interest & possession of the Plaintiff. The Trial Court having decided the said issue in favour of the Plaintiff has gone simply to answer all other issues accordingly which appears to be the right approach. Thus, the suit having been decreed the Defendant has impugned the same in the appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Defendant has not got due opportunity to contest the case by examining witnesses & proving required documents in support of its Case Therefore, he urges that the petition filed on their behalf under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. numbered as Misc. Case No.274/1994 need be allowed. Learned Counsel for the Respondent objects the move on the ground that the petition is bereft of necessary details, which are required to be considered for the purpose by this Court It is also his submission that with such evasive pleading in the petition, the prayer at this stage merits no consideration, when the Defendant had all the opportunity but failed to do so. The objection is also for this belated move & as highly prejudicial to the Plaintiff. 6. The Defendant being well aware of the claim of the Plaintiff in the Court below has not adduced any evidence. In the petition simply a plea has been advanced to the effect that these facts regarding detail sales made by Plaintiff were not known & the documents then could not be obtained. The suit was filed on 07.11.1984. The Defendant filed written statement on 26.06.1985. In fact order sheet dated 10.02.1986 maintained in the Court below shows that the Defendant declined to give any evidence. The appeal being filed on 17.06.1986, on 04.12.1993 an application was filed for adduction of additional evidence which was numbered as M.C.No.882/1993 & was Withdrawn on 28.01.1994. Then again the present petition under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was filed with better particulars & documents on 06.04.1994 numbered as M.C. NO.274 of 1994. It is stated that although the records were maintained in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, the facts were not known earlier. Then again the present petition under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was filed with better particulars & documents on 06.04.1994 numbered as M.C. NO.274 of 1994. It is stated that although the records were maintained in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, the facts were not known earlier. This shows the half hearted manner & as to how in a cavalier fashion the suit was contested. As it appears that the Defendant has taken no such step earlier in this regard in pleading these facts in detail of all the sales made by Plaintiff & also took no steps to adduce evidence on that score. During cross-examination of Plaintiff (P.W.2) he has not been put with such facts for being explained if any. In view of this at this belated stage, I find no ground to allow the petition Under Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C. in admitting the documents which are copies of registered sale deeds in evidence. Therefore, the petition under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. is rejected & consequently M.C. NO.274 of 1994 stands dismissed. 7. Learned Counsel for the State-Appellant next submits on merit that the Plaintiff has not been able to prove his case for the purpose of the relief as granted by the Trial Court. According to him, it was incumbent upon the Plaintiff to prove by positive evidence to the satisfaction of the Court duly proving the identity of the land that he purchased, possessed & then those he sold in piecemeal to others through documents & other records & also as regards the present possession with reference of the 'specific land. This having not been done his submission is that the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the evidence led by the Plaintiff have gone unchallenged & no such material exists on record to discard such evidence, which is wholly in consonance with the pleading of the Plaintiff. It is also his submission that the oral evidence coupled with the documentary evidence tendered by the Plaintiff is sufficient enough to grant decree for the reliefs & those having been granted, the Trial Court did commit no error. Therefore, according to him, the Judgment & decree are unsustainable. 8. Keeping the above rival submissions in mind, now. it is to be seen as to whether. Therefore, according to him, the Judgment & decree are unsustainable. 8. Keeping the above rival submissions in mind, now. it is to be seen as to whether. the finding rendered by the Trial Court on Issue No.4 which has practically led to decree the suit of the Plaintiff is sustainable in the eye of law or not & if is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record in touch stone of the pleadings. Over & above all the pleadings as has been referred to in the forgoing paragraph, it may be stated that the Plaintiffs purchase is of AC.37.36 dec of land from out of Sabak Plot No.156 by two registered sale deeds is not denied. It has also emerged during the suit that O.S. No.52 of 1984 has been filed for the land measuring AC.1.30 dec, which is said to have been in occupation of 'Sarbasadharana' for the purpose of road & is used as such. 9. The Plaintiffs averment in the. plaint is that he has sold land measuring AC.16.50 dec. to different persons from out of this purchased land of Ac.37.36 dec. So. the balance when calculated comes to AC.20.86 dec. But in the plaint it has been shown as AC.20.36 dec. As per the Record of Right of the current settlement, it is said that land of AC.14.47 dec. instead of AC.20.30 dec. has been recorded under two khatas. Thus, the deficit in that way comes to AC.6.39 dec.; whereas if the plaint averment is taken into consideration then it come to AC.5.89 dec. Interestingly, the declaration of title has been sought for with respect to land of AC.20.36 dec. The Plaintiff has been examined in this case as P.W.2. He has stated to have sold Ac.16.50 dec. to P. W.1 & others & to have been in possession of land measuring AC.20.86 dec. That" apart, in this ease the Plaintiff while proving the registered sale deeds Exts.1 & 2 by which he has purchased the land has neither stated anything as regards the details of the sales he has made in favour of different persons & the possession of those lands to have been resting with whom, nor he has proved the registered sale deeds by which he has sold said extent of lands. It is the settled position of law that the Plaintiff has to establish those necessary facts by leading clear, cogent & acceptable evidence for the purpose of grant of relief in his favour & he cannot take advantage of weakness of the defence. In the present case, the Defendant in the written statement has called upon the Plaintiff to prove those details of sales made by the Plaintiff. Thus, for the purpose of grant of relief of declaration, the burden was upon the Plaintiff to prove the sales he had made from out of his total purchased land of Ac.37.36 dec as pleaded & to establish that he remained as the owner in possession of the balance land of Ac.20.36 dec. It was also his further obligation to prove that after recording in the current settlement the land from out of his purchased land, the rest area having remained in his hands in possession after the sales, the same has erroneously been recorded in the name of the Defendant. Only on proof of all these facts the onus would have shifted to the Defendant to show as to how the recording of the land as per the current settlement record in favour of the Plaintiff is correct. On going through the evidence of the Plaintiff, it is found that all those required facts have not been proved, more particularly, with regard to the sales, the balance remaining with him under his possession so as to provide justification for his claim that lesser area of land has been recorded in his name with the deficit from his land being recorded in the name of the Defendant. The report of the Commissioner Ext.5 cannot be taken to have relieved the Plaintiff of the burden of proof of the facts as stated above. This having not been done by the Plaintiff, I am lead to hold that the Plaintiff has failed to establish his claim for the purpose of declaration of his right, title & interest in respect of the suit land measuring AC.20.36 dec. In the upshot of above discussion & for the reasons as assigned, the finding of the Trial Court on Issue No.4 by inventing a third case for the Plaintiff has right. title & interest with respect to the suit land comprising an area of AC.15.97 dec. is untenable & thus liable to be set aside. In the upshot of above discussion & for the reasons as assigned, the finding of the Trial Court on Issue No.4 by inventing a third case for the Plaintiff has right. title & interest with respect to the suit land comprising an area of AC.15.97 dec. is untenable & thus liable to be set aside. Therefore, the Judgment & decree impugned in this appeal are hereby set aside & the suit of the Plaintiff stands dismissed. 10. Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed & in the circumstances without costs.