JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar in Title Appeal No. 41 of 1990 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Bhubaneswar in O.S. No. 12 of 1986-I. The present appellants are the unsuccessful defendants all through. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the court below. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land with other lands originally belonged to Raghunath Mohapatra, Biswanath Mohapatra and Kedarnath Mohapatra and as such they were the recorded tenants being the owners in possession. It is stated that after the death of Kedarnath his widow Padmini and daughters namely, Sundarmani and Gayatri illegally sold away some lands to the outsiders who have got such purchased land recorded in their names in the last settlement though they were never in possession. Late Raghunath Mohapatra and late Biswanath Mohapatra had filed the suit i.e. O.S. No. 139 of 1962-I in the Court of Sub Judge, Bhubaneswar which was finally disposed of on 31.01.1967. It being the suit for partition, the final decree being drawn, the civil court commissioner had also delivered the possession of the land to the parties in so far as their allotted properties are concerned. As per the said decree, Biswanath, the father of the plaintiff got Ac0.2.234½ decimals which is the middle portion of the land under sabik plot no.22 and he possessed the same. On his death, his widow Malati, sons Ramakanta and Pruthikanta, and daughters Geeta, Mitra and Indira possessed the said land as his legal heirs and successors. It may be stated that the daughter of Biswanath, namely Indira, the plaintiff in the suit from which this appeal has arisen claims that on 19.06.1974, her mother and two daughters executed a gift deed in her favour in respect of the land measuring Ac0.60 decimals which had fallen to the share of Biswanath wherein they had the interest which precisely is the subject matter of the present suit. In the said gift deed, the sisters of the plaintiff, namely Geeta and Mitra had given their consent and the said gift was acted upon, and accepted and the possession of the land in question being delivered to the donors, the plaintiff claims to be in possession of the same. In the current settlement the land having been recorded in her name, she is also paying rent and has been staying over it by constructing two asbestos roofed rooms. For the said rooms holding tax is said to have been assessed by the Municipality, which she is paying. It is further alleged that Kamala Jena, defendant no.3 who is the wife of defendant no.1 and mother of defendant no.2 has purchased the said land adjoining the suit land on its south from the legal heirs and the successors of Kedarnath and she was a party in the partition suit i.e. O.S. No. 139 of 1962-I for that reason. It is next stated that in the year 1973, defendant no.3 sold away his entire land to one Kulamani Biswal. The land was adjoining the suit land on its southern side. It is alleged that the defendants though have no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land yet taking the advantage of absence of the plaintiff as she was residing at Mumbai forcibly entered upon the suit land and constructed the room over it which compelled the plaintiff to file the suit. 4. The defendants contested the suit pleading inter alia that Kedarnath Mohapatra was in possession of the land of his share and after his death, his widow Badani and daughters Sundarmani and Gayatri sold the land measuring Ac0.192½ decimals which includes the suit land from out of her share to the defendant no.3 by registered sale deed dated 15.10.1958. The defendant no.3 was accordingly delivered with the possession of the same. They admitted institution of O.S. No. 130 of 1962-I and the fact that the defendant no.3 was a party therein. However, it is stated that the suit has been dismissed against her. The factum of delivery of possession of the suit land by the civil court commissioner to any of the parties to the said suit stands denied. They admitted institution of O.S. No. 130 of 1962-I and the fact that the defendant no.3 was a party therein. However, it is stated that the suit has been dismissed against her. The factum of delivery of possession of the suit land by the civil court commissioner to any of the parties to the said suit stands denied. It is her case that her vendors had executed the registered sale deed transferring Ac0.192½ decimals of land in her favour which includes the suit land and it was from out of their total share of Ac2. 537½ decimals. It is now contended that out of the said purchased land measuring Ac0.192½ decimals, the defendant no.3 has sold away Ac0.075 decimals to one Rama Kanta Mohanty and Ac0.075 decimals to one Kulamani Biswal, and therefore now she is in possession of the rest land extending to Ac0.052 decimals having house of their own. The right of the donors of the plaintiff in the gift deed as averred is denied. The gift is also attacked as to have never been acted upon and the other facts as regards payment of rent, holding tax etc. are also denied. It is further submitted that the defendants having constructed the house has inducted some tenants. The entry in the said current settlement is said to be erroneous and the move in filing the suit is said to be with the ulterior motive of grabbing the suit land. 5. The trial court having framed six issues and has rightly taken up issue nos. 4 and 5 for decision at first, as those concern with the claim of the plaintiff on one hand and the defendants on the other as regards right, title, interest and possession over the suit land measuring Ac.0.60 decimals of land. Upon evaluation of evidence and their assessment, the trial court has given the clear and categorical finding on the title in favour of the plaintiff and has held the defendants to be in forcibly possession of the suit land having no such right over the same. The other grounds as regards maintainability of the suit as also technical pleas raised by the defendants have been over ruled. The suit has thus having been decreed, the unsuccessful defendants carried an appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure where also they have failed to receive any positive result. The other grounds as regards maintainability of the suit as also technical pleas raised by the defendants have been over ruled. The suit has thus having been decreed, the unsuccessful defendants carried an appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure where also they have failed to receive any positive result. Therefore they have approached this Court with this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the courts below were wrong in interpreting the two sale deeds Exts. 3 and 4, in coming to a conclusion that the same contain the admission of the defendant no.3 to the effect that she had purchased Ac0.152 decimals of land? (2) Whether the courts below have failed to scan the evidence both oral and documentary to find out whether the plaintiff’s vendors had title over the property and whether the plaintiff derived title and possession over the disputed land?. 7. At the out set, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the following substantial questions of law also arise in this case for being answered and thus those be also framed and answered. (i) Whether the findings of the courts below are barred by constructive res judicata in view of the judgments in the former suits under Exts. 2 and Ext.B or not ? (ii) Whether the suit being virtually for recovery of possession, on declaration of right, title and interest is barred by law of limitation in view of long standing possession of the defendants from the date of purchase of the land under Ext.A or not ?. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the above questions are covered under those substantial questions of law already framed at the time of admission and therefore not so necessary. He contends that in view of the rival case of the parties and findings of the courts below under challenge, all these questions have to be answered in one being inter connected. 9. Coming to the merit, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the findings of the courts below that under Ext.A, the registered sale deed dated 15.10.1958, Badani, Sundermani and Gayatri from the branch of Kendarnath having sold Ac.0.192½ decimals of land to defendant no.3 and subsequently, the defendant no.3 under Exts. 9. Coming to the merit, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the findings of the courts below that under Ext.A, the registered sale deed dated 15.10.1958, Badani, Sundermani and Gayatri from the branch of Kendarnath having sold Ac.0.192½ decimals of land to defendant no.3 and subsequently, the defendant no.3 under Exts. 3 and 4, the registered sale deed dated 17.03.1973 having sold some of her purchased land to Ramakanta Mohanty and Kulamani Biswal, the irresistible conclusion ought to have been drawn and so recorded that the suit land is the rest land remaining in possession of the defendant no.3. It is also submitted that the contents of the sale deeds Exts. 3 and 4 ought not to have been taken as admission of the defendant no.3 and as such as the conclusive proof of the facts stated therein. He further contends that on the face of overwhelming evidence of possession, it ought to have been held that the defendant no.3 had perfected title by adverse possession. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that here all the findings recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court are pure findings of fact and when the courts below have gone for extensive examination of the evidence both oral and documentary in arriving at such conclusions, those are not liable to be interfered with in the second appeal even if it may be possible to take another view unless of course such findings are termed as perverse. He further contends that even the lower appellate court being the final court of fact having been moved by the unsuccessful defendants, it has taken up the exercise in arriving at the decisions on the crucial issues on independent examination of evidence yet it has not been able to differ with the view of the trial court and has accordingly affirmed it. It is also submitted that the question of res judicata which is raised now in the second appeal for the first time during hearing is not entertainable in the eye of law. The principles are not attracted and the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is said to be misconceived on that score. It is also submitted that the question of res judicata which is raised now in the second appeal for the first time during hearing is not entertainable in the eye of law. The principles are not attracted and the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is said to be misconceived on that score. He has countered the submission that suit is barred by law of limitation as not legally supportable when the defendants have failed in establishing the right, title and interest over the suit properties being in possession of the property for more than 12 years by establishing through clear, cogent and acceptable evidence fulfilling all the requirements of law governing the field. He contends that by mere long possession, the right, title and interest of the true owner cannot get extinguished and that cannot stand as a bar for the plaintiff to file the suit, when the defendants who are under legal obligation to establish that they have perfected the right, title and interest over the suit properties by remaining in possession of the suit land openly, peacefully and continuously for about upward of 12 years have failed to do so. According to him, the trial court as well as the lower appellate court have rightly rendered the decision on the competing claim of the plaintiff on one hand and defendant no.3 and others on the other so far the right, title and interest over the suit land is concerned covering all the above substantial questions of law framed and those which are urged to be framed are also covered by the answers returned on those two issues. 11. Now therefore, this Court is called upon to address the above rival submission for finding out the answers to the substantial questions of law together which would side by side go to cover the examination of the sustainability of the finding of the courts below on issue nos. 4 and 5. It stands admitted that the O.S. No. 139 of 1964-I was filed in the court of Sub Judge, Bhubaneswar which has been finally disposed of on 31.01.1967. The two co-sharers, Raghunath and Biswanath were the plaintiffs. 4 and 5. It stands admitted that the O.S. No. 139 of 1964-I was filed in the court of Sub Judge, Bhubaneswar which has been finally disposed of on 31.01.1967. The two co-sharers, Raghunath and Biswanath were the plaintiffs. It has been proved that as per the decree in that suit, Biswanath got Ac2.237½ decimals of land at the mid portion of the plot no.22 and the possession of the same was delivered to him by the civil court commissioner in the field. Biswanath was survived by his widow, sons Ramakanta and Pruthikanta, and daughters Geeta, Mitra and Indira. The plaintiff in order to stand on her own has to establish the right, title and interest over the suit land by proving the registered gift deed dated 19.06.1974 executed by Malati, Ramakanta and Pruthikanta in showing that he has been clothed with the right, title and interest over the said land by virtue of it and those have flown from the donors to him. The defendants have denied the same and it is their case that defendant no.3 had purchased Ac0.192½ decimals of land which includes the suit land from Badani, the widow of Kedarnath and her two daughters namely, Sundarmani and Gayatri under registered sale deed dated 15.10.1958 vide Ext.A. It is next stated that out of the land so purchased i.e. the land measuring Ac0.192½ decimals, the defendant no.3 has sold away Ac0.075 decimals to one Rama Kanta Mohanty and same extent of land to one Kulamani Mishra and thus she is in possession of the rest of the land which is the suit land having the right, title and interest. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court are found to have rightly approached the matter having gone to examine the decree passed in O.S. No. 1/37 of 1957/55 (Ext.B) and O.S. No. 139 of 1962-I, which are Exts. 2 and Ext. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court are found to have rightly approached the matter having gone to examine the decree passed in O.S. No. 1/37 of 1957/55 (Ext.B) and O.S. No. 139 of 1962-I, which are Exts. 2 and Ext. 2/a. Having taken up that exercise, a clear finding has been recorded that as emerges out, the recorded land under sabik plot no.22 was comprising an area of Ac9.800 decimals and out of that land measuring Ac0.250 decimals was left for common road/passage and thus the rest of Ac9.550 decimals of land had been divided among the co-sharers, when Kedarnath branch got Ac2.537½ decimals on the extreme south with its adjacent north going to the father of the plaintiff i.e. Biswanath measuring Ac2,337½ decimals and the rest land adjacent to the land of Biswanath falling to the share of Raghunath. This is the clear position which emerges from Ext. B/2 and Ext.2/a which in course of hearing has been further verified. Giving my thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as spending anxious moments, I am not at all in a position to appreciate the submission that the findings of the courts below as have been rendered are barred by the principles of res judicata in view of the judgment in the former suit under Ext.2 and Ext.B. During the pendency of a final decree proceeding, if one co-sharer sells some land to the outsiders, or even to another co-sharer, the sale cannot be void altogether. However, the sale certainly will be subject to the outcome of the final decree as regards allotment of the land to the vendor and to the extent of his share. So, even if one sale is not disclosed in the partition suit that will not render the entire final decree null and void and thus the entire exercise for that cannot be said to be one in futility. 12. Here the dispute hinges upon the claim of defendant no.3 having purchased Ac0.192½ decimals of land which includes the suit land from Badani, Gayatri and Sundarmani. Out of the said purchased land sale has been effected by defendant no.3 and the suit land is said to the rest of the purchased property. Ext.-A is the sale deed on which the defendants base their claim. Out of the said purchased land sale has been effected by defendant no.3 and the suit land is said to the rest of the purchased property. Ext.-A is the sale deed on which the defendants base their claim. So, defendants are bound by the contents of the same and under no circumstance they can wriggle out of it unless they show by positive evidence to the satisfaction of the court, that there had been a bilateral mistake with regard to the contents of the said document. In this situation, in view of the recital of the document, it is impermissible in the law to take into consideration the extraneous evidence. The courts below have rightly pin pointed the dispute in practically saying that it is as to whether the defendant no.3 had purchased Ac0.192½ decimals or Ac.152 decimals of land under Ext.-A. The evidence of defendant no.1, examined as D.W.1, who is the husband of defendant no.3 being read and examined for the purpose and viewed with Ext.-A clearly leads to say that the defendant no.3 though purchased Ac0.192 decimals of land out of sabik plot no.22, that extent of land did not come to be allotted to her vendor at the ultimatum and thus she came to possess the land measuring Ac0.152 decimals which was fed as the grant and that corresponds to land under hal plot no.4141 in part. The Exts. 3 and 4 are the registered sale deeds executed by this defendant no.3 in selling land in two equal portion i.e., the land measuring Ac.075 decimals to one Rama Kanta Mohanty and same extent to Kulamani Mishra from out of her purchased property under Ext.A. The plaintiff had taken all the steps to cause production of the original documents through court, but that having not been possible, despite all required efforts, the trial court has rightly admitted the certified copy of these documents in evidence. The recitals therein have been quoted in extentio by the trial court at sub para-3 of para-6 of its judgment. Those are absolutely clear and do not admit any such ambiguity. The recitals therein have been quoted in extentio by the trial court at sub para-3 of para-6 of its judgment. Those are absolutely clear and do not admit any such ambiguity. The defendant no.3 has admitted therein that since land measuring Ac0.152½ decimals fell to the share of her vendors, accordingly although she had purchased Ac0.192 ½ decimals of land, she remained in actual possession of the land measuring Ac0.152 decimals that have been fallen to the share of her vendors over which she derived the right, title and interest. I find no evidence to have been let in by the defendants to explain away the admission of the defendant no.3 in these registered documents Ext.3 and 4 concerning the very subject matter while describing the facts as regards its acquisition and possession by the defendant no.3 and while transferring to others in duly discharging the legal obligation and duty as a true vendor to disclose all those facts concerning the subject in adherence to the provision of section 55 of the T.P. Act. 13. This being the finding there arises no question of applicability of the doctrine of adverse possession and consequential extinguishment of title of the plaintiff as first of all the defendant no.3’s possession is not found and secondly the possession was not in denial of the title of the true owner and with that intention but treating the land as her own being the purchased land when, the defendant no. 3 is not the vendor. 14. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law receive their answers running against the appellants and in favour of confirmation of the judgment and decree passed by the courts below. 15. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed with cost throughout.