JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. 1. Defendant is the appellant against a confirming judgment. 2. Plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit schedule land originally belonged to Ajimun Nisa Begum, ex-intermediary. He got the same from the ex-intermediary on permanent lease basis about 50 years back. He was in possession of the suit land. He obtained rent receipts from the ex-intermediary. He used to pay rent to the State after vesting. During hal settlement operation, the suit land had been recorded in the name of the State as Abadajogya Anabadi with a note of his illegal possession in the remarks column. Since the rent was not accepted, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was pleaded that record of right was prepared after due enquiry. Plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the suit land. 4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck five issues. Plaintiff had examined two witnesses and on his behalf four documents had been exhibited. Neither any witness was examined nor any document had been exhibited on behalf of the defendant. Learned trial court came to hold that plaintiff had right, title and interest over the suit land. Held so, it decreed the suit. The unsuccessful defendant challenged the judgment and decree in appeal before the learned District Judge, Puri, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Puri and renumbered as T.A. No. 15/80 of 1983. The appeal was eventually dismissed. It is apt to mention here that during pendency of the second appeal, respondent-plaintiff died. The legal heirs had been substituted. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law. “Whether the presumption available under Section 13 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act is rebutted by the three rent receipts issued with mark without prejudice?” 6. Heard Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned A.S.C. for the appellant submits that plaintiff had not exhibited the lease deed said to have been executed by the ex-intermediary in his favour. Some of the rent receipts had been fabricated. Heard Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned A.S.C. for the appellant submits that plaintiff had not exhibited the lease deed said to have been executed by the ex-intermediary in his favour. Some of the rent receipts had been fabricated. Mere acceptance of rent receipts does not mean that State had recognized the plaintiff a tenant. 8. Eight rent receipts had been marked as exhibits. Out of which, Ext.2 series said to have been granted by the Ex-Tahasildar of the intermediary. On a cursory perusal of Exts.2 and 2/a, it is evident that rent receipts had been granted in respect of khata no. 45/60, which is not the suit plot. Though such a contention was raised in the courts below, but the same was repelled on untenable and unsupportable grounds. Learned appellate court held that Ext.2/c and 2/d bear the correct khata number of the suit property which was subsequent to Exts.2/a and 2/b. 9. No lease said to have been executed by the ex-intermediary in favour of the plaintiff had been exhibited. Admittedly, the suit property belongs to the ex-intermediary. It vested in the State free from all encumbrances after coming into operation of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. There is no material on record that the ex-intermediary had submitted ekpadia in favour of the plaintiff or any rent roll prepared in his name. Reliance placed on rent receipts is totally misplaced. 10. Rent receipts were granted without prejudice. This Court in the case of Magu Sahu vs. Bhramarbara Behera and Others, (1977) 44 CLT 65 held that the rent receipts do not confer any right nor prove settlement of property. The words “without prejudice” import into any transaction that the parties have agreed that as between themselves the receipt of money by one and its payment by the other shall not by themselves have any legal effect on the rights of the parties, but they shall be open to settlement by legal controversy as if the money had not been paid. In The Collector, Cuttack vs. Shri Atul Chandra Das and Another, 1972 (2) C.W.R. 1104, a Division Bench of this Court held that acceptance of rent under such rent receipts cannot confer any tenancy interest. The substantial question of law has been answered accordingly. 11. In the result, the impugned judgments are set aside. In The Collector, Cuttack vs. Shri Atul Chandra Das and Another, 1972 (2) C.W.R. 1104, a Division Bench of this Court held that acceptance of rent under such rent receipts cannot confer any tenancy interest. The substantial question of law has been answered accordingly. 11. In the result, the impugned judgments are set aside. The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.