JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are the appellants against a reversing judgment. 2. Plaintiff-respondent no.1 instituted Title Suit No.34 of 1991 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Padampur for a declaration that the order passed in Mutation Case No.246 of 1983 is not binding on him, to set aside the sale deeds Nos.2040 dated 10.7.1990, 2020 dated 9.7.1990, 2041 dated 11.7.1990 and 2043 dated 10.7.1990 executed by defendant nos.1 and 2 in favour of other defendants. Case of the plaintiff is that Sukhlal Gupta and Ramkishan Gupta are two brothers. He is the son of Sukhlal Gupta. Defendants 1 and 2 are the widow and son of Ramkishan Gupta. There was a partition of the ancestral properties between two brothers. The same was reduced to writing. The deed was registered on 30.9.1954. The suit schedule property was purchased by his father from Tapan Barik in the year 1960 for a consideration of Rs.850/-. He had constructed a kuchha house over the same. Ramkishan Gupta requested his father to occupy two rooms for running a business. His father allowed to occupy the suit house. After the death of Ramkishan Gupta, defendants 1 and 2 intended to shift to Raipur. He requested them to vacate the suit house. Defendants 1 and 2 agreed to vacate the house. He came to know that in the year 1988, defendants had tried to alienate the suit house in favour of the outsiders. He requested defendants 1 and 2 not to alienate the property. Defendants 1 and 2 expressed that the land had been mutated in their names. Thereafter, they sold the land to defendants 3 to 6. It was further pleaded that defendants 1 and 2 surreptitiously mutated the land in their favour. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit. 3. Defendants 1 to 6 filed a joint written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was pleaded that the partition deed of the year 1954 was a simple document to facilitate the business of Sukhlal and Ramkishan. The same was never acted upon. Though the suit land was purchased in the name of Sukhlal Gupta, but the consideration was paid by Ramkishan Gupta. They remained joint till 1970. In the subsequent settlement proceeding, the lands were recorded separately. The same was never acted upon. Though the suit land was purchased in the name of Sukhlal Gupta, but the consideration was paid by Ramkishan Gupta. They remained joint till 1970. In the subsequent settlement proceeding, the lands were recorded separately. But then, the suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of Sukhlal Gupta. Therefore Ramkishan Gupta applied for correction of ROR in Mutation Case No. 246 of 1983 before the Tahasildar, Sohella. Sukhlal Gupta appeared in the mutation case and conceded that the suit land had fallen to the share of Ramkishan. The mutation case was within the knowledge of the plaintiff. The allegation of impersonation or fraud was false. After mutation, defendant nos.1 and 2 continued in possession. Subsequently they sold some portion to defendants 3 to 6 by means of a registered sale deed. In the year 1983, the suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of Sukhlal in the major settlement operation. Both the brothers executed two plain paper ‘Kararnama’ on 6.7.1983, wherein Sukhlal admitted that the suit land belonged to Ramkishan. There was a family partition on 30.9.1954. They remained joint till 1970. In the year 1970, they separated from each other. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. Parties adduced evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their case. Learned trial judge held that the registered partition deed dated 30.9.1954 had not been acted upon. The suit was not maintainable. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Challenging the judgment and decree, plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.47/1 of 1995-2003 before the learned Addl. District Judge, (FT), Bargarh. The same was allowed. 5. The second appeal was admitted on 5.8.2004 on the following substantial questions of law. “1. Whether the finding of the lower appellate court that Ram Kishan Gupta was the real owner of the suit land keeping in view the custody of the sale deed (Ext.7), admitted possession of the defendants, admission of late Sukhalal in Exts. D & E and before the Revenue Officer in the mutation proceeding, i.e., Ext.5 is correct ? 2. Whether the plaintiff has discharged the burden that the suit property was acquired out of the own income of Sukhalal, who was the elder brother of Ram Kishan and Karta of the family ? 6. Mr. Buddhiram Das, learned advocate on behalf of Mr. 2. Whether the plaintiff has discharged the burden that the suit property was acquired out of the own income of Sukhalal, who was the elder brother of Ram Kishan and Karta of the family ? 6. Mr. Buddhiram Das, learned advocate on behalf of Mr. N.C. Pati, learned advocate for the appellant, submitted that the registered partition deed dated 30.9.1954, vide Ext.1, was created for the purpose of business. The same had not been acted upon. Though the sale deed was executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff, but the consideration amount was paid by Ramkishan Gupta. He further contended that both the brothers remained joint till 1970. There was a partition of the property in the year 1970 between Ramkishan Gupta and Sukhlal Gupta. The suit property was wrongly recorded in the name of Sukhlal Gupta in the ROR. In view of the same, Ramkishan Gupta had applied for correction of ROR in Mutation Case No. 246 of 1983. The plaintiff was aware of the same. The mutation case was allowed. The land was mutated in the name of the defendants 1 and 2, whereafter they sold the land to defendants 3 to 6. He further contended that both the brothers had executed two plain paper ‘Kararnama’ on 6.7.1983. Sukhlal Gupta had admitted that the suit land belonged to Ramkishan Gupta. Learned trial court came to hold that the suit land was not the self-acquired property of Sukhlal Gupta. The registered partition deed had not been acted upon. On untenable and unsupportable ground, learned lower appellate court reversed the findings of the learned trial court. 7. Per contra, Mr. Subhadatta Routray, learned advocate on behalf of Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents, submitted that there was a partition between Sukhlal Gupta and Ramkishan Gupta in respect of the ancestral properties. The same was reduced to writing and registered on 30.9.1954, vide Ext.1. Since 1954 both the parties were in possession of their respective shares. Sukhlal Gupta, father of the plaintiff, purchased the suit land from Tapan Barik in the year 1960 for a consideration of Rs. 850/-. He had constructed a kuchha house over the same. Ramkishan Gupta requested his father to occupy two rooms for running a business. His father allowed to occupy the rooms. He further contended that in the mutation case, no notice was issued to the plaintiff. 850/-. He had constructed a kuchha house over the same. Ramkishan Gupta requested his father to occupy two rooms for running a business. His father allowed to occupy the rooms. He further contended that in the mutation case, no notice was issued to the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 2 clandestinely sold the suit land to defendants 3 to 6. 8. The ancestral properties of Sukhlal Gupta and Ramkishan Gupta were partitioned. The same was reduced to writing. The deed was registered on 30.9.1954 vide Ext.1. Defendants do not deny the registered partition deed. The defendants assert that the partition deed had not been acted upon. It was a mere paper transaction for the purpose of business. Learned lower appellate court, on a thread bare analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings came to hold that there is no document in support of the plea that two brothers had actually partitioned the properties in the year 1970. On the oral testimony of the defendants, it was difficult to nullify the registered partition deed. ROR, Ext.2, was published in favour of the plaintiff. It compared the signature of Sukhlal vide Ext.1 and Ext.6 with Ext.D and held that the signature of Sukhlal Ext.D was not genuine. The signature in Ext.1 was of the year 1954, when Sukhlal was 40 years old, whereas the signature on Ext.D was of the year 1983, i.e., 29 years thereafter expecting the substantial change in the signature of a person. Admitted signature on Ext.6 was dated 9.4.1986, i.e., subsequent to Ext.D. It is different from that of Ext.D. On a scrutiny of the certified copies of the order sheet in the mutation case filed in the court it further held that nowhere the signature of Sukhlal appeared in the margin. No notice was served on Sukhlal. Consent of Sukhlal was not taken before the Tahasildar. It further held that the sale deed dated 5.6.1960 in respect of the suit land was executed in the name of Sukhlal. The mutation ROR neither creates nor extinguishes title. These are essentially the finding of facts. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 9. In the wake of the aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.