JUDGMENT : DR. A.K. RATH, J. Defendant nos.1 to 3 are the appellants against a reversing judgment. 2. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 instituted the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff, defendant nos.1 to 3 sold the Schedule-A land to him by means of a registered sale deed dated 29.01.1975 for a valid consideration vide Ext.1 and thereafter delivered possession. But in the settlement R.O.R., the names of defendant nos.1 to 3 had been wrongly recorded. 3. The defendants entered contest and filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that Schedule-A land was not sold to the plaintiff. The land described in the sale deed as well as in the schedule of the plaint does not tally. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck nine issues. Parties led evidence, both oral and documentary, to substantiate their case. The suit was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff filed T.A. No. 30/6 of 1990 before the learned Additional District Judge, Titilagarh. The appeal was allowed. 5. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether contemporous facts and circumstances for drawing an inference that the assertion in the sale deed Ext.1 including the description of property intended to be sold, are wrong ?” 6. Heard Mr. Budhiram Das, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.C. Pati, learned Advocate for the appellants and Ms. Neha Sharma along with Mr. Lalit Kumar Moharana, learned Advocates on behalf of Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents. 7. Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the defendants had not sold Schedule-A land at any point of time. Plot number mentioned in the sale deed and the disputed suit land does not tally. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. R.O.R. has been published in the names of the defendants. 8. Per contra, Miss. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the description of the suit land in the sale deed and the plaint is same except the plot number. The mouza, district, khata number, area and boundary described in the sale deed tally with the suit schedule land. Learned appellate court rightly came to hold that the plaintiff has title over the suit land. The mouza, district, khata number, area and boundary described in the sale deed tally with the suit schedule land. Learned appellate court rightly came to hold that the plaintiff has title over the suit land. To buttress her submission, she relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Babaji Dehuri and others v. Biranchi Ananta and others, AIR 1996 Orissa 183. 9. Taking a cue from the decisions in Sheodhyan Singh and others v. Mst. Sanichara Kuer and others, AIR 1963 SC 1879 and Dinabandhu Sathi and others v. Chintamoni Sahu and others, AIR 1971 Orissa 215, this Court in Babaji Dehuri (supra) held:- “10. xxx xxx xxx Whenever there is any misdescription of the property, the real intention of the parties has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances as well as the sale deed. Though it is not an inexorable principle of law, but ordinarily it is said that depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, whenever there is a conflict in the description of a property in a sale deed or any other instrument so far as plot number, khata number and boundaries are concerned, generally speaking, the boundaries are to prevail. xxx xxx xxx.” 10. On a cursory perusal of the sale deed dated 29.01.1975 vide Ext.1 as well as schedule of the plaint, it is evident that the mouza, district, khata number, area and boundary described in the sale deed tally with the suit schedule land. But then, there is misdescription of plot number in the sale deed and schedule of the plaint. On an analysis of evidence on record as well as pleadings, learned appellate court came to hold that the R.I. has demarcated the land and submitted a report. The report has been marked as exhibit. From the said report, it is evident that the plaintiff is in possession of Schedule-A land. Although in Ext.1 there is misdescription of the plot number, but the identity of Schedule-A land has been clearly mentioned as per boundary given therein. The plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. The entry in the M.S. ROR neither creates nor extinguishes title. In view of the same, reliance placed on the R.O.R. is totally misplaced. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 11. The plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. The entry in the M.S. ROR neither creates nor extinguishes title. In view of the same, reliance placed on the R.O.R. is totally misplaced. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 11. In the wake of aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the suit is decreed. There shall be no order as to costs.