JUDGMENT : The appellant by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) has called in question the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2012 and 06.12.2012 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar under R.F.A. No. 15/33 of 2010. 2. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the learned lower appellate court has refused to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar in Title Suit No. 918 of 2001 (415/95). The present appellant having filed the suit as the plaintiff, the trial court had dismissed the same. The lower appellate court on being moved by the aggrieved plaintiff has in the final round confirmed those judgment and decree impugned in the first appeal. 3. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court. 4. Facts necessary for the purpose of this appeal are as follows :- The plaintiff is a Church Institution under the name “St. John in the Wilderness”, At/P.O. Jatni and represented through Calcutta Diocesan Trust Association (Pvt.) (for short CDTA), a registered company having its registered office located at Bishop’s House, 51, Chowrangee Road, Calcutta represented by its Chairman. The plaintiff-institution of Christian Community has filed the suit seeking declaration of its title and confirmation of possession in so far as the suit land is concerned. The Church building with its campus is over the land under Plot No. 89 belonging to Khata no. 1509 admeasuring Ac. 6.625 decimals. The suit land stands recorded in the name of the South Eastern Railways, (in short, S.E. Railways)-the defendant no.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Church was originally an Angelican Church established by the Britishers during the British Rule in India as back as during 17th Century. It is stated that prior to the enactment of Indian Church Act, 1927 and its coming into force on 22.12.1927; all the Churches were considered to be the properties of ‘Crown’ and were directly regulated by the laws of England. It is stated that prior to the enactment of Indian Church Act, 1927 and its coming into force on 22.12.1927; all the Churches were considered to be the properties of ‘Crown’ and were directly regulated by the laws of England. On coming into force of aforesaid Act, Indian Church Trustees, a statutory body (for short, ICT) recognized under the provisions of the said Act stood conferred with the right, possession and control of all the Indian Churches; the maintenance of such Churches, were however being done by the Central Government. In course of time, Government notification came on 23.03.1948 and it was to the effect that the maintenance and expenses of such Churches came to be borne by the Church Authority instead of Government of India. The statutory body namely, ICT later divested the property in favour of CDTA on 12.03.1953. Subsequent to this, the CTDA executed a power of attorney authorizing Bishop Rev. Ruben Senapati of Cuttack to look after the properties of said Trust in the State of Orissa. However, it is stated that without any justification and for no such reason during the settlement operations in the year 1962, the property was wrongly recorded in the name of the S.E. Railways, the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff-Church all along has remained in possession of the properties which is the subject matter of the suit to the knowledge of all concerned uninterruptedly and without any disturbance from any quarter including the defendant no. 1. In January, 1994, some Railway Officials and Employees when came over and gave open threats to the Church Authorities on the basis of the said erroneous recording of the land in question; the plaintiff-Church apprehending tress-pass in view of that threat and causation of nuisance thereby filed the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession over the suit land with other consequential reliefs. 5. The defendants filing the written statement first of all raised the technical objection that the suit is barred by limitation. It is stated that they are the owner of the property and accordingly, it has been asserted that the suit land has been rightly recorded in the name of defendant no. 1 during the settlement operations. It is further stated that the Standing Committee of the Railways have been maintaining said St. John Church, Khurda at Jatni. It is stated that they are the owner of the property and accordingly, it has been asserted that the suit land has been rightly recorded in the name of defendant no. 1 during the settlement operations. It is further stated that the Standing Committee of the Railways have been maintaining said St. John Church, Khurda at Jatni. Thus, they claim title over the suit property stating it to be belonging to the Railways. The case as laid by the plaintiff in respect of divesting of the said plaintiff-Church together with its property upon CDTA has been denied, further pleading that there was no occasion for the same. It is stated that the land over which the plaintiff-Church stands and the premises i.e. campus is owned by the defendants. With all these, defendants have prayed to non-suit the plaintiff-Church. 6. The trial court first of all dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 27.07.2010. The plaintiff then carried the first appeal. The appeal being allowed, the matter was remanded to the trial court for disposal afresh by returning findings on all these issues framed therein. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the said order of remand dated 07.01.2011 passed in R.F.A. No. 15/33 of 2010 carried further appeal before this Court which stood numbered as SAO No. 02 of 2011. This Court in disposing the same by judgment dated 05.04.2012 directed the first appellate court to decide the appeal afresh taking into consideration the observations made therein. The relevant portion of the Order reads as under :- “xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx On examining the impugned judgment, I also find that the lower appellate court should not have remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh disposal of the suit as all materials were available on record and the lower appellate court should have delivered a judgment by re-settling the issue, if required, as provided under Rule-24 of Order-41. I, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment passed by the lower appellate court in R.F.A. No. 15/33 of 2010 and remit the matter back to the said lower appellate court to dispose of the aforesaid R.F.A. afresh after hearing learned counsel for the respective parties on the materials available on record. If required, the lower appellate court may re-settle the issues for just adjudication of the appeal. If required, the lower appellate court may re-settle the issues for just adjudication of the appeal. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx” In view of above order passed by this Court in SAO No. 02 of 2011, the lower appellate court having heard the appeal afresh, has dismissed the same. 7. It may now be stated that on the rival case of the parties as aforestated, the trial court has framed in total six issues. Issue nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) concern with the suit’s maintainability; suit being barred by limitation and the cause of action to file the same. Issue No. (vi) is the general issue as regards the entitlement of the plaintiff to any relief other than those claimed. On merit of the case as it appears two issues, i.e., issue nos. iv & v are important and those relate to the claim of the plaintiff’s right, title and interest over the suit schedule property vis-à-vis the recording of the said land in the record of right which is claimed by the plaintiff to be erroneous and asserted to be correct by the defendants. These two issues are inter-twined. 8. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that during trial, the plaintiff has examined six witnesses, besides proving the documents in support of its claim which have been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext. 1 to 17 which will come to be discussed at appropriate stage. The defendants, however, have chosen not to adduce any oral evidence by examining any witness on their behalf. It has proved the ROR of the land assigned with Khata No. 1130 of mouza-Kudiary and letter of local Tahasildar dated 04.05.2010 which have been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext. A & B respectively. To be more descriptive documents proved from the side of the plaintiff-Church, which have been marked exhibit without objection which are felt important for the purpose are Ext. 3, Gazette Notification dated 20.07.1929, Ext. 4 the circular dated 23.03.1948, Ext. 1, Indian Church Act, 1927, Ext.-6, the registered deed of declaration under sub-section 5 of section 6 of the Indian Church Act. The letters of permission issued by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar, are Exts. 10, 10/a and 10/b and permission letters of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhubaneswar which are Ext. 11, 11/a, and 11/b. The permission letter of Jatni Municipal Council is Ext. 1, Indian Church Act, 1927, Ext.-6, the registered deed of declaration under sub-section 5 of section 6 of the Indian Church Act. The letters of permission issued by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar, are Exts. 10, 10/a and 10/b and permission letters of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhubaneswar which are Ext. 11, 11/a, and 11/b. The permission letter of Jatni Municipal Council is Ext. 2 and the money receipts issued by the Jatni Municipal Council are Exts. 13 and 13/a. 9. The trial court taking up issues relating to the maintainability, survival of the cause of action for the suit and the question of limitation i.e. issue No. (i), (ii) and (iii) has recorded the finding that the suit having been filed after long lapse of time since the publication of record of right, the same is barred by limitation as provided in Section 42 of the Orissa Survey Settlement Act, 1958. In view of that, other two issues having been felt not necessary to be answered have not been touched upon. Thereafter, assuming the suit to be maintainable, the trial court has gone to examine the merit of the case of the plaintiff and the entitlement to the reliefs as claimed in so far as the suit schedule property is concerned. On perusal of the evidence, it has held the plaintiff to have failed to prove that the plaintiff-Church and its property had ever vested with CDTA Calcutta. Nonetheless, it has recorded a positive finding as regards the factum of possession of the suit land till the date of suit to have been with the plaintiff-Church. Thus, ultimately holding the plaintiff to have failed to establish its right, title and interest over the suit property, as also the suit to be not maintainable after long lapse of time, the plaintiff-Church has been non-suited. 10. The lower appellate court has gone to address the rival submission at paragraph-10 of its judgment. On going through the evidence and giving a look at the provision of section 3 of the Indian Church Act, it has put the blame upon the plaintiff to have not proved any document showing that the said Church with the suit property was consecrated with the approval or at the request of the competent civil authority and has ever since remained vested in the Crown before the commencement of the Indian Church Act. In view of that, it has expressed the difficulty in holding the suit property to have been deemed to have been conferred upon the Indian Church and upon its officials. It has also found fault with the plaintiff to have not proved any document that the suit property was the property of the British Church prior to coming into force of Indian Church Act, 1927 and that after operation of the Act, the suit property to have vested in favour of Indian Church Trustees ultimately coming to the hands of the plaintiff-Church. Then going to look at the records of right Ext. B & Ext. 2 which reflect that the suit properties stands recorded in the name of defendants although with kisam of “Girija Ghara”, i.e., Church House and “Churh Hatta”, i.e., Church Premises; the defendants have been held to be the owner of the same and then, saying that the suit to have been filed even long after the recording of the land, the plaintiff-Church has been non-suited. 11. The present appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law as indicated in Para-1, 2 and 3 of Page-15 of the memorandum of appeal. The last one, i.e., (C) has been recasted on the date of hearing of this appeal keeping its nucleus untouched and by merely describing the same in a better manner :- “A. Whether the finding on issue no. (iv), which is very vital and relates to flow of title, is perverse and outcome of omission of the learned First Appellate Court to refer the definition “maintained Church read with Second Schedule and Section 6 of the India Church Act? B. Whether the vesting of the land, building, control and supervision of Churches by the Central Act would be overlapped and / or superseded and / or held to be nugatory by operation of State Act i.e. under the provisions of Orissa Tenancy Act? B. Whether the vesting of the land, building, control and supervision of Churches by the Central Act would be overlapped and / or superseded and / or held to be nugatory by operation of State Act i.e. under the provisions of Orissa Tenancy Act? C. Whether, when the flow of title is by operation of a Central Statute, mere recording of the land in the ROR is conclusive and can confer title absolutely and will oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in deciding the issue by investigating the title and finding out the real title holder of the property in question when admittedly the party so claiming as the suitor continues all along to be in possession of the said property as has been established from evidence? 12.(a) Learned counsel for the appellant in the first place submitted that the courts below have taken an erroneous view so as to carry an adverse impact over the suit claim because of its being filed after long lapse of time since the publication of record of right by going to challenge the same. It was submitted that the suit being based on title first of all the courts would not have viewed that since the record of right standing in the name of the defendants has gone unquestioned for a long time, the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land, if any, stood extinguished which indirectly leads to say as if that record of right has conferred title upon the defendants when the finding of possession of the suit land has been categorically recorded in favour of the plaintiff. He also submitted that in view of categorical finding based on sound appreciation of evidence, both oral as well as documentary, that the suit land has been in possession of the plaintiff all along notwithstanding the recording of the land, the record of right ought to have been held to be absolutely of no legal significance much less to say, standing as a bar for adjudication of plaintiffs title. He submitted that since the defendants have not questioned the finding of possession of the suit land by the plaintiff and as the suit has been filed apprehending dispossession at the instance of the defendants, the provision of section 42 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act cannot stand as a bar and that view taken by the courts below is wholly erroneous. 12.(b) In the second place, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the courts below from the beginning have not duly bestowed their attention upon the averments made in the written statement filed by the defendants wherein while merely stating that the Railways Administration were managing and looking after the plaintiff-Church and then again going to state that the defendants were not directly involved in its maintenance, they have admitted the Church to have been established during the British Regime, and much prior to the commencement of Indian Church Act, 1927. It is further submitted that the important averment made in the written statement in reply to averments made para-4 of the plaint have also not been viewed that the defendants therein admitted that after said Government notification as referred to in para-4 of the plaint, it had wanted to entrust the management of the plaintiff-Church to the local committee in writing and so also its maintenance and though it was to be by an agreement, it has not been done yet and the said local body has been managing the Church. It is also submitted that the courts below have lost sight of the most important document proved from the side of the plaintiff i.e. Ext. 4 which is the relevant circular dated 23.03.1948. According to him, in view of the evidence on record without any such factual or legal justification, the plaintiff has been non-suited when, barring the noting in the record of right, the defendants have not been able to show as to how the property came to their hands and how they are the title holder. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 supported the findings of the courts below as regards the maintainability of the suit. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 supported the findings of the courts below as regards the maintainability of the suit. According to him such claim of title over the suit land cannot be adjudicated after lapse of long time when the record of right has not been questioned all through till suit and it has thus been allowed to hold the field stretching over a long period. He next contended that there being no evidence to show that the Church and the suit property was ever consecrated with the approval or at the request of the competent civil authority and thus has ever since vested in the Crown prior to the commencement of Indian Church Act as required under the provisions of the said Act, so as to hold that the suit property has been deemed to have been conferred upon the Indian Church and upon its officials, the claim of title as laid by the plaintiff has been rightly negatived by the courts below. 14. The point that needs to be addressed first is concerned with the maintainability of the suit for the reliefs claimed as is said to have been filed after a long period. As the record position reveals, the suit property is shown to be the properties of the Railways (defendant) in the year 1962. The fact however very much remains that the existence of the Church House has been reflected therein as also its premises on the said land. Plaintiff asserts to have the title over the suit property and as such claims that relief. Further prayer of the plaintiff is for confirmation of possession over the suit land asserting that the suit land has all along remained in the possession of the plaintiff and no such step has ever been taken for driving out the plaintiff from possession, getting it vacated for restoration of possession by the defendant nor even any attempt is said to have been made in that direction saying that said possession of the plaintiff has been unauthorized. Though the defendant claims to be the owner of the property, there is no such denial of the factum possession of the said property by the plaintiff with standing the Church House thereon as well as its premises. Though the defendant claims to be the owner of the property, there is no such denial of the factum possession of the said property by the plaintiff with standing the Church House thereon as well as its premises. Factual finding on microscopic examination of evidence and the materials as available being culled out therefrom is that, it is the plaintiff, who has been in possession of the suit land. Both the courts below have returned the same finding without expressing any difference in the process. Said finding has not been called in question by filing any cross objection or appeal as provided under order 41 rule 22 of the Code. The law is well settled that if a suitor claims title and files a suit for declaration of his right, title and interest as also confirmation of possession asserting the possession of the suit land to be with him all through, mere recording of the same in the record of right in the name of another even though has been holding the field for a long time, cannot stand as a bar and is not enough to whittle down the claim of title of the suitor for the reason of the said recording of the land being not in favour of the plaintiff. So in the instant case, notwithstanding the record, if the plaintiff’s claim over the suit land is found to have been established and as despite the record position, he has never parted with the possession and has been in possession of the same till the date of the suit, the legal bar as contained in section 41 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act cannot have its play to non-suit the plaintiff on the face of the well established position of law that such record neither creates nor extinguishes the title and it is always open to the civil court to find out the real holder of the title despite any such recording when such controversy arises. If the plaintiff is found to have the title and thus has been remaining in possession despite recording, there stands no impediment for the court to grant relief. If the plaintiff is found to have the title and thus has been remaining in possession despite recording, there stands no impediment for the court to grant relief. If the plaintiff has the title but not possession and the adversary does not establish to have perfected the title by virtue of adverse possession having remained in possession of the property since the time of recording all along as its owner or to have acquired it in any other legally recognized mode, there also stands no impediment for the court to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. In view of the aforesaid, this Court repels the views of the courts below on the score that the suit is liable to be dismissed as has been filed after a long period since the recording of the suit land in favour of the defendants. The matter now stands for examination on merit of the claim of the plaintiff in order to decide as to what relief/reliefs, if any, to which the plaintiff is entitled to. 15. Adverting to the case in hand, it is seen that the suit land has been recorded during the settlement in the name of the defendants which has no doubt remained as such for a quite long period. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to establish its claim of title and the basis of claim over the suit property first which thus stands for examination next. 16. Tracing the history of Anglican Church of India, which denoting the Church of England or any Church in communion with it, it is seen that the Diocese of Calcutta, i.e., a district under the pasteral care of a Bishop in the Christian Church was promulgated in 1814. Its territories included not only India but also those countries known today as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma (Myanmar) and Cylone (Sri Lanka) and also from 1824 to 1836, Australia as well. With the foundation of Diocese of Madras in 1835 and the Diocese of Bombay in 1837, Indian Church was formed into a Province with Bishop of Calcutta being Metro-political ex-officio. Until the year 1927, the Church of India was a Province of Church of India under the authority of Crown and the British Parliament. Indian Church Measure, 1927 was passed on 23rd of November, 1927. Until the year 1927, the Church of India was a Province of Church of India under the authority of Crown and the British Parliament. Indian Church Measure, 1927 was passed on 23rd of November, 1927. It made provision for dissolution of the legal union between the Church of England and the Church of England in India. The Indian Church Act, 1927 was then passed on 22nd December, 1927, consequent upon passing of the Indian Church Measure, 1927; for the purpose of giving effect to certain changes as consequential to the Measures indicated therein and being felt so expedient. It was provided therein that the said Measures would come into operation on the date to be fixed by order in Council. Thus, the Church of India has continued to receive measure legal protection under the terms of Indian Church Measure of 1927 and the Indian Church Act of 1927. 17. At this juncture, let us profitably glance at the relevant provisions of the Indian Church Act, 1927, which are Sections 3, 4, 6(1) and 6(3)(a). Thus, the Church of India has continued to receive measure legal protection under the terms of Indian Church Measure of 1927 and the Indian Church Act of 1927. 17. At this juncture, let us profitably glance at the relevant provisions of the Indian Church Act, 1927, which are Sections 3, 4, 6(1) and 6(3)(a). Those read as under :- “Section 3-Save as expressly provided in this Act or in rules made thereunder :- (1) Notwithstanding any defects or informalities in the documents or proceedings, it is declared that where any church or burial ground has been consecrated before the commencement of this Act with the approval or at the request of a competent civil authority and the site thereof was at the date of the sentence of consecration and has ever since remained vested in the Crown such consecration shall be deemed to have conferred upon the Indian Church and upon its officials and members respectively such rights of possession, control, and user of the site and buildings (if any) as they respectively would have had if prior to the pronouncing of the sentence of consecration the site and buildings had been conveyed or assured to a person or persons to hold the same on behalf of or in trust for the Indian Church: (2) The Indian Church and the officials and members thereof respectively shall have and be entitled to exercise, after the date of severance, all such rights of possession, control and user of the site and buildings (if any) of any consecrated church or burial ground as the Indian Church and the officials and members thereof respectively had immediately prior to that date, and all references to "the United Church of England and Ireland", the Church of England " or " the Church of England in India" (whether such terms are used with or without the addition of the words as by law established") in any petition for or sentence of consecration or in any conveyance or declaration of dedication of the site of any such church or burial ground shall be construed as references to the Indian Church. xx xx xx 4. (1). xx xx xx 4. (1). If the Archbishop of Canterbury shall certify by a writing under his hand sent to the Governor-General of India in Council that the Indian Church has ceased to be in communion with the Church of England, the Governor-General of India in Council on receipt of such certificate shall cause the same to be published in the Gazette of India and shall forward a certified copy to the Bishop of Calcutta and thereupon shall be at liberty to resume complete control of all or any Maintained Churches or burial grounds, whether consecrated or not, and the Indian Church and the officials and members thereof respectively shall cease to have any rights therein. (2)-(i) Every such resumption of complete control shall be effected by not less than twelve months' notice sent to the Bishop of Calcutta and expiring at the end of a financial year of the Government of India. (ii) No such notice shall be valid unless given before the expiration of two years from the date of the publication of the certificate of the Archbishop of Canterbury. (3) Upon such resumption of complete control of a church or burial ground the church or burial ground shall, if not already so vested, by virtue of such notice and without any conveyance being necessary vest in the Grown or such person or persons as the Governor-General of India in Council shall appoint for an absolute estate in possession, and if duly consecrated shall be held in trust for the purposes of the Church of England, and shall be freed from any claim by the Indian Church or any officials or members thereof connected therewith. xx xx xx 6. (1) At any time after the commencement of this Act, the General Council may by resolution appoint such number of persons as they shall see fit (not being less than three) to represent the Indian Church and to hold property for any uses or purposes thereof, and when it is shown to the satisfaction of His Majesty the King that the said Council has appointed such persons His Majesty the King in Council may by Charter incorporate them and their successors with power to hold land without licence in mortmain under the name of the Indian Church Trustees. xx xx xx (3) Subject to the provisions of this Act and rules made thereunder, upon the date of severance all property subject to this Act shall vest in the Indian Church Trustees, except the following, viz. :- (a) churches for the time being entered in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act and the goods and ornaments of such churches;.” 18. For effective working and implementation of the provisions contained in the Measure and the Act as stated above, the Indian Church Statutory Rules, 1929, subsequently reissued under notification no.304 of the Gazette of India dated 09.03.1940 and then called as Indian Church Statutory Rules, 1940 had been made. The Royal Charter of incorporation granted to the Indian Church Trustees was published in the Gazette of India on the 20th day of July, 1929 (Ext.3). By a letter dated 23rd March, 1948 issued under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence which has been proved and marked as Ext.4, it was informed to all concerned as regards the decision of the Government of India to the effect that in accordance with the wind up of all Ecclesiastical affairs that all Churches and connected Buildings attached thereto, which till then were being maintained at State expense from the funds provided for the same (under-“32-Ecclesiastical”) would no more be so maintained after 31st March, 1948 and that all such Churches and connected Buildings would be handed over to the Church Authority of the concerned who would be responsible for their up-keep and maintenance from the 1st day of April, 1948 and no such expenditure shall be incurred by the Government for the maintenance, repair, contingencies, lighting, establishment etc. The letter found annexed with the details of Churches, the authorities to whom they will be transferred and other particulars. While going to state “Church of India”, in Para-2(a) of the said letter, the following finds mention in categorical terms: (a) Church of India:-All Anglican Churches including in the list of Maintained Churches which forms the Second Schedule to the Indian Church Act, 1927 will be removed from the List from 1st April, 1948 which will have the effect of vesting them in the Indian Church Trustees from that date. The relevant notification has been published in the Gazette of India on 27.03.1948 in pursuance to the decision of Government of India as communicated under the letter referred to the above under Ext.4 dated 23.03.1948 in exercise of powers conferred by Rule-12 of the Indian Church (India) Statutory Rules, 1940 and that document has been filed in this appeal. The authenticity or genuineness of the same is not doubted and it’s fortified by Ext.4 where hint has been given about publication of said notification soon thereafter. So the notification which is a public document can be well taken into consideration and that would in no way cause prejudice to the adversary. As per that the Governor General by agreement with the Bishop of Calcutta was pleased to remove w.e.f. 1st April, 1948, the Churches specified therein from the list contained in the Second Schedule of Indian Church Act, 1927. This plaintiff-Church i.e. St. John, Khurda Road very much finds place there in the said list of Churches. In view of that, it now becomes clear that the vesting as provided in Section-3 of the Indian Church Act, 1927 has taken place on completion of all the required legal formalities and being so followed up. It reveals from Ext.6 that on 09.03.1953, the Indian Church Trustees have transferred and conveyed the said properties to the Calcutta Diocesan Trust Association, a body incorporated under section 26 of the Indian Companies Act, 1930 by executing a deed to that effect. The deed was registered before the Ministry of Assurance, Calcutta on 12.03.1953. So in view of the said deed, the property in question stood divested from the Indian Church Trustees and vested with Calcutta Diocesan Trust Association. 19. In the above premises, the manner of recording of the land over which the Church House stands as also the Church Premises run is of no legal significance. It is more so because the defendants are not showing a scrap of paper in support of such recording that how it has come to the hands of Indian Railways. 19. In the above premises, the manner of recording of the land over which the Church House stands as also the Church Premises run is of no legal significance. It is more so because the defendants are not showing a scrap of paper in support of such recording that how it has come to the hands of Indian Railways. Undeniably, the railway tracks and the railway area lie nearby the land in question, which finds clearly stated in the letter dated 06.05.1974 (Ext.17) issued by the Chief Engineer, S.E. Railways as it was then from its Head Office in response to the complaint made to such recording of the land in question alleging it to be erroneous. It has been stated therein that in case, it is found that the Church premises are beyond the limits of Railway’s land, the Railway Administration do have no objection to get the record corrected in favour of the said Church in the manner prescribed under the law. The matter of course is seen to have not made further progress there upon. But at the same time, it is seen from the series of documents with regard to possession, enjoyment and dealing of the property, in question, by the plaintiff. It is seen from Ext.5 that no such holding tax has been collected by the Municipal Council in respect of the Church Building being so exempted under section 132 (2) of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950. Repeatedly year after year permissions have been granted by the Government Administration at the Sub-Divisional level for conducting “Mina Bazar” show stretching over a week or more on the land in question, organized by the local businessmen forming an Association in the name of ‘Sitaram Chhak Byabasai Sangha’ and the State has also collected entertainment fee for the purpose. 20. For the aforesaid, it is clearly seen that the present Church along with its property vested with the Crown in view of Section-4 of the Indian Church Act, 1927 and the Church was removed finally from Part-1 of the Second Schedule of the Act and then in view of Rule-12 read with Rule-15 of the Indian Church (India) Statutory Rules, 1940 the vesting of the same took place with the Indian Church Trustees which in view of the execution of the document (Ext.6) came to the hands of Calcutta Diocesan Trust Association. Finally, the British Statutes (Application to India) Repeal Act, 1960 (Act No.57 of 1960) came to be passed on 26.12.1960 so as to repeal certain British Statutes in their application to India. The said Repeal Act of 1960 while repealing the British Statutes as specified in the Schedule of Act has further provided that the said repeal of any British statutes shall not affect the operation of any such statute in relation to India and to persons and things in any way belonging to or connected with India in any country to which India (Consequential Provision) Act, 1949 extends. The Indian Church Act, 1927 very much finds place at sl. no. 197 of the said British Statutes (Application to India) Repeal Act, 1960. It is further seen that the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence in this connection had issued a letter dated 3rd August, 1965. It was a clarification in the backdrop of removal of Anglican Churches in the Second Schedule to the Indian Church Act, 1927 consequent upon the Government of India’s general policy regarding the wind up of ecclesiastical affairs w.e.f. 01.04.1948. The letter points out the legal effect of said removal; that the Churches vested in the Indian Church Trustees under Rule-15 of the Indian Church (India) Statutory Rules, 1940 shall continue to have the beneficial rights of ‘possession, control and use’ in respect of the sites as well as the buildings of the Churches. It has been clarified that the effect of the repeal does in no way curtail the rights of ‘possession, control and use’ which vested in the Indian Church Trustees in respect of the Churches in the Second Schedule of the Indian Church Act, 1927 and such rights have in no way been interfered with or affected. It has been the evidence of P.W.1 that the suit property over which the Church House stands as also the premises run is in possession of the plaintiff and that also finds support from the documents as already discussed. The evidence of all other witnesses run in similar line. It appears that there has even been no attempt to challenge such evidence much less to find any evidence being let in to the contrary. The courts below have also recorded concurrent finding on that score in favour of the plaintiff. The evidence of all other witnesses run in similar line. It appears that there has even been no attempt to challenge such evidence much less to find any evidence being let in to the contrary. The courts below have also recorded concurrent finding on that score in favour of the plaintiff. Aforesaid discussion and reasons lead to conclude that the view taken by the lower appellate court that the plaintiff’s suit is liable to be dismissed on their failure to prove the fact that the suit property was consecrated with the approval or at the request of the competent civil authority and has ever since remain vested in the Crown before the commencement of the Indian Church Act, 1927 is unsustainable. In fact, in view of the letters and notifications which have been referred to in course of the discussion as above, the same does not stand as the need for the purpose. 21. The consequences which thus emerge run as under : (1) The Church of St. John in the Wilderness, Khurda Road and the property had vested in the Indian Church Trustee coming to be remaining under the control of the Calcutta Diocesan Trust Association (plaintiff-appellant) for the purpose of Church of England and subject to the condition mentioned in the Indian Church (India) Statutory Rules, 1940 with the rights of possession, control and use of Church and property being so vested. The substantial questions of law receive their answers accordingly. 22. In the wake of aforesaid, the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside and the plaintiffs suit has to be decreed with the declaration to the extent as indicated in the foregoing paragraph in favour of the plaintiff in so far as the suit properties are concerned and the defendants are to be restrained from interfering with the said possession of the plaintiff over the suit land except in accordance with law. The recording in respect of the suit property shall abide by the above declaration. 23. Resultantly, the judgments and decrees impugned in this appeal are set aside and the plaintiff’s suit stands decreed in terms of the declaration as stated in the foregoing paras. The appeal stands accordingly disposed of. In the facts and circumstances the parties to bear their respective cost of litigation all throughout.