JUDGMENT This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Phulbani in Title Appeal No.08 of 1985 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the leaned Additional Sub-Judge, Phulbani in Title Suit No.21 of 1983 in decreeing the suit filed by the original plaintiff, Satrughna Mallik against the original defendant-Saraswata Jani. It is pertinent to state that during pendency of the appeal before this Court, the original plaintiff and the defendant having died, their legal representatives being substituted are on record and they are now pursuing this appeal. 2.For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarify and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial Court. 3.The plaintiffs case is that the suit land originally belonged to Rama Mallik who happens to be the grandfather of the plaintiff. It is stated that the land having been recorded in the name of Rama as per the Record of Rights of the year 1922-23, he was in possession of the same all along till his death. Upon his death, his only son Gajendra who happens to be the father of the plaintiff began to possess the same as it’s owner during the life time and thereafter the plaintiff being the son of Gajendra, took over reign and as such came to peacefully possess and enjoy the suit property. It is alleged that the defendant, being the western adjoining land owner in order to grab the suit land insisted the plaintiff to sell the same to him. The plaintiff having refused to do so, the defendant created trouble in the peaceful possession for which he ultimately lodged a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. vide Misc. Case No.04 of 1978 on the file of Executive Magistrate, G. Udayagiri. The proceeding however ended with an order in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff having carried a revision did not succeed in upsetting the said order declaring possession of the defendant as on the date of preliminary order passed in the said Misc. Case. It is also stated that during the last settlement operation, the defendant influenced the settlement authorities advancing a claim of possession over the suit land and some how managed to get the same recorded in his name. Case. It is also stated that during the last settlement operation, the defendant influenced the settlement authorities advancing a claim of possession over the suit land and some how managed to get the same recorded in his name. Further, the allegation has been made against the defendant that he had advanced a false claim before the Executive Magistrate, G. Udayagiri in that proceeding under Section 145 of the Code that the land was purchased by one Kosta Jani and that he has been instituting different cases against the plaintiff only to harass and deprive him of the property. The claim of the plaintiff is that the defendant has no right, title and interest over the suit land. So, the suit has been filed for declaring the plaintiff’s right, title, interest and right to possess the suit land and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendant. The defendant denied the relationship of the plaintiff with that Rama Naik. The plaintiff’s right over the suit and so also the peaceful possession and enjoyment at any point of time are also denied. The settlement record is said to be correct. It is stated that the father of the defendant namely Kosta Jani had purchased the suit land and he had engaged Rama Mallik to look after the property as he was his field servant. Rama Mallik is said to have taken the advantage of that and got the settlement record created in the year 1923. Rama Mallik have never possessed the suit land as its owner. It is further stated in paragraph-5 of the written statement that in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code in the year 1958, learned Executive Magistrate has rightly declaring the possession of the suit to be resting with the defendant .Towards the end i.e. at para 10 of the written statement, plea has been taken that the suit is barred by time. It may be mentioned here that nothing is stated further as to how and why the suit would be thrown out on the ground of limitation and accordingly, the plaintiff is to be non-suited. It may be mentioned here that nothing is stated further as to how and why the suit would be thrown out on the ground of limitation and accordingly, the plaintiff is to be non-suited. 4.The Trial Court on such rival pleadings framed seven issues and taking up issue No.4 as regards the relationship of the plaintiff as the grandson of Rama Mallik, upon evaluation of evidence and their assessment, categorical finding has been rendered in favour of the plaintiff and the contention of the defendant on that score has been repelled. Next coming to the other issue concerning ownership of the property vis-à-vis the claim of the defendant as regards purchase of the suit land by his grandfather Kosta Jani and possession as claimed, the Trial Court has gone for further examination of the evidence let in by the parties. Ultimately it has held that the plaintiff has got the title over the suit land whereas the defendant has nothing to do with it. On the other issue relating to the publication of the Record of Right in the settlement operation, it has been said that the same cannot disturb the title of the plaintiff, so far as the suit land is concerned. The limitation aspect has also been dealt with. The suit having been filed well within twelve years from the date of passing of the order declaring the possession over the suit land in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C of the year 1978, the same has been held as not barred by limitation. 5.The unsuccessful defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and there so called in question all those findings. As it appears from the judgment of the lower appellate Court, having framed the points for determination as mandated under law as regards the title over the suit land and the suit if is barred by limitation, it has gone for critical examination of evidence on record in order to judge the sustainability of the finding of the Trial Court. Proceeding to appreciate the evidence independently, the ultimate conclusion has emerged that the Trial Court’s finding is correct. Proceeding to appreciate the evidence independently, the ultimate conclusion has emerged that the Trial Court’s finding is correct. So far as the limitation aspect is concerned, similar view having been taken favouring the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court has remained in agreement with the Trial Court in decreeing the suit. In view of the same, having lost in both the Courts below, the unsuccessful defendant has filed this second appeal calling in question the correctness of the findings of the Courts below on the issue of right, title and interest over the suit property as also the limitation to be not standing as a bar for the suit as held. 6.The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law as indicated in ground No.2 and 3 of the Memorandum of Appeal which are as under: (1)For that if the Court below committed error of law in computing the period of limitation for this suit from the date of final order passed in M.C. No.4 of 1978 under Section 145, Cr.P.C. in favour of the defendant instead of from the date of the final order passed in his favour (in favour of the defendant) in previous 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding vide Ext. “F” in M.C. No.34 of 1957 which was passed on 28.3.1958 and in not holding that the suit was barred by time for not being filed within 3 years of the final order passed in M.C. No.34 of 1957 under Article 47 read with Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908. (2)For that,there being a number of documents exhibited from the side of the defendant i.e. the order of criminal Courts in 145 proceedings, the R.O.R. of Settlement of 1955 and 1981, Rent Receipts, Sale Deed of 1902, if the Court below is wrong in declaring the title and possession of the plaintiff by completely not taking into consideration the above documents of the defendant validly and properly exhibited in the suit on his side ? 7.Learned Counsel for the appellant at the outset travelling beyond the arena of the substantial question of law as above, submits that the findings of the Trial Court on the issue of relationship of the plaintiff with Rama Mallik is wholly erroneous and on that score both the Courts have committed an error by placing the burden of proof upon the defendant to establish in the negative and that the appreciation of evidence on that score is also said to be improper and it has been urged that the said finding is without any evidence as also by misreading the documents and overlooking the evidence placed from the side of the defendant. He next contends that in an earlier proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. vide M.C. No.34 of 1957, when defendant’s possession had been declared in respect of the suit land by order dated 28.03.1958, no suit having been filed within a period of three years there from as it was so required under Article 47 of the Limitation Act, 1908 as it was then in force the present suit ought to have been held to be hopelessly barred by limitation as it is not saved under the new Act. This aspect according to him has been totally overlooked as contended. In view of the above, he submits the suit is liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the respondents resisting the above submission, contends that the Courts below on thread bare analysis of evidence on record have recorded the concurrent finding of fact that Rama Mallik is the grand father of the plaintiff. The finding is based on sound appreciation of evidence and nothing is there on record to show that the Courts below have done so either without any evidence or that in arriving at that conclusion have overlooked the material evidence which if would have taken into consideration, the finding might have been otherwise. In order to strengthen his submission, he has placed before this Court, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Trial Court i.e. paragraphs 7 to 10 as also the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the lower appellate Court in showing as to how there has been proper appreciation of evidence and the conclusion is free from any infirmity. In order to strengthen his submission, he has placed before this Court, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Trial Court i.e. paragraphs 7 to 10 as also the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the lower appellate Court in showing as to how there has been proper appreciation of evidence and the conclusion is free from any infirmity. According to him, there remains no scope for interference with such concurrent finding of fact and that is not permissible just because for a moment another view can be taken on the basis of existing evidence as there remains no reason in holding that such conclusion of the Courts below are perverse and as such is wholly unreasonable. It is his next contention that the defendant in a general way has taken the plea that the suit is barred by limitation. However, nothing is stated as to how and for what reason, plaintiff is to be non-suited and his suit is barred on the ground of limitation. But still then the Courts below have bestowed their attention in addressing the said issue and on the basis of rival submission in view of the provision under Article 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act which govern the field so far as present suit is concerned, have negated the defence plea. 8.Even though no substantial question of law has been framed concerning the issue No.2 relating to the relationship of the plaintiff with Rama Mallik yet as it has been urged that at the time of hearing of this appeal, this Court feels it proper to examine the same as to if any substantial question can arise on that score. Plaintiff claims himself to be the grand son of Rama, the recorded tenant in respect of the suit land as per the Record of Rights of the year 1922-23. The defendant has denied the said relationship. Plaintiff has led evidence in order to show his relationship with Rama and the Courts below have very rightly taken up said issue at first for decision since it touches the root of the matter in deciding the fate of the suit as to whether the plaintiff has locustandi to file it. The plaintiff as usual has deposed on oath to be the grand son of Rama Mallik. He has further deposed that Ram to be having an alias name and was called as Ranjita. The plaintiff as usual has deposed on oath to be the grand son of Rama Mallik. He has further deposed that Ram to be having an alias name and was called as Ranjita. One Govinda Mallik, P.W. 2 has deposed that Gajendra is the son of Ranjita who is also called as Rama. It is the evidence of plaintiff, P.W. 1 that Rama died when he was a child. Admittedly in the Record of Right of the year 1922-23, the suit land stood recorded in the name of Rama. On the existing evidence, the Courts below have come to the finding that by prepondence of probability, the plaintiff has established his relationship with Rama when that has not been duly rebutted by the defendant either by shaking the plaintiff evidence or demolishing the same during cross examination or by leading some weighty and satisfactory evidence to the contrary. In such state of affair in evidence, this Court finds that the view taken by the Courts below is based on reasons or upon due appreciation of evidence on record. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there remains substantial question of law on the said score is thus not acceptable. 9.Next coming to the substantial questions of law as mentioned above, a bare perusal of the written statement reveals that the plea that the suit is barred by law of limitation is there without any further narration as to for what reason, it has to be so held. It is just one line defence that the suit is barred by time. It is urged here in the second appeal for the first time that there was a proceeding under Section ‘145 Cr. P.C. in the year 1957 and in that proceeding by order dated 28.03.1958 possession of the defendant was declared. So as per the provision of Limitation Act, 1908 then prevailing prior to the new Act coming into force, under the specific Article 47 provided to meet such contingency, the plaintiff had to file the suit within three years therefrom and that having not been done, the present suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. So as per the provision of Limitation Act, 1908 then prevailing prior to the new Act coming into force, under the specific Article 47 provided to meet such contingency, the plaintiff had to file the suit within three years therefrom and that having not been done, the present suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Interestingly enough, the defendant has neither pleaded it in so many words in the written statement nor any hint is provided in the entire written statement in that light that there was a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. concerning this suit land in the year 1957 between the parties and that culminated by order dated 28.03.1958 declaring possession of the defendant in respect of the present suit land. This was neither raised before the trial Court nor before the first appellate Court. The certified copy of the order in Misc. Case No.34 of 1957 has been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.F. Perusal of the entire order does not show the number of plot for which the proceeding was initiated although in general it has been indicated that the disputed land is having Patta No. 49 and 67, yet it was stated therein by the defendant that Rama Mallik @ Kanhar, father of Bindu Kanhar is a different man. When we glance at the evidence of defendant No.1, examined as D.W. 1 nothing also surfaces threrein to show the definite nexus. Therefore, this Court finds that the Courts below have rightly held the suit to be not barred by limitation as it has been filed within 12 years of culmination of the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. vide Misc Case No.04 of 1978.The aforesaid discussion and reasons thus accordingly provide answers to the substantial questions of law. 10.Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed and in the facts and circumstances without cost. Appeal dismissed.