JUDGMENT : A.K.Rath, J - Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title and the entry in the M.S. ROR is wrong. 2. Case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to Kanheilal Kar, ex-intermediary. He executed an unregistered amalanama pata in favour of Sambhu Barik fifty five years back. Sambhu reclaimed the suit land. The land was mutated in his name. He paid rent to the ex-intermediary. After vesting of the estate, ex-intermediary submitted the rent roll in the name of Sambhu, whereafter T.L was opened. Sambhu paid rent to the Government. He was recognized as a raiyat by the Government. To press the legal necessity, Sambhu sold the suit land to Krupasindhu Santara and Paramananda Santara by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.7.1961 for a valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession. The land was mutated in their names. Krupasindhu and Paramananda were two brothers. Krupasindhu had no son. Plaintiff is the son of Paramananda. Krupasindhu gifted his 50% share to the plaintiff by means of a registered gift deed dated 3.3.1978 and delivered possession. After death of his father, the plaintiff succeeded to the suit property. He used to pay rent. But then, in the major settlement ROR published on 9.10.1990, the suit land has been wrongly recorded under Abadajogya Anabadi Khata in the name of the Government. In the remarks column, the possession of the plaintiff has been reflected. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit after issuing notice under Sec. 80 CPC to the defendant. 3. Defendant has not filed the written statement, but participated in the trial. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined two witnesses and on their behalf, eight documents had been exhibited. Learned trial court dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the suit land was not settled in favour of ex-intermediary. The tenancy ledger was not proved. The rent had been accepted by the Government without prejudice. The same cannot create any right in favour of the plaintiff. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.57 of 1999 before the learned District Judge, Balasore, which was eventually dismissed. 4. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in Ground Nos.1 and 2 of the appeal memo. The same are - "1. The same cannot create any right in favour of the plaintiff. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.57 of 1999 before the learned District Judge, Balasore, which was eventually dismissed. 4. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in Ground Nos.1 and 2 of the appeal memo. The same are - "1. Whether the courts below committed serious illegality in law in holding that Sambhu Barik has no transferable right without appreciating the fact that Ex-intermediary submitted rent roll in his favour for which Tental ledger was prepared in his name coupled with the fact that the land was mutated in his name and Government received rent from his recognizing him to be a tenant under the State ? 2. Whether the courts below are justified in law to hold that acceptance of rent by the Government from Sambhu Barik cannot create any right in favour of him with respect to suit land since there is a seal on each of the receipt (Ext.2 series) rent has been accepted by the State "without any prejudice?" 5. Heard Mr. Budhiram Das on behalf of Mr. N.C. Pati, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 6. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the courts below committed manifest illegality in holding that Sambhu had no transferable right. The ex-intermediary submitted rent roll in favour of Sambhu, whereafter T.L ledger was prepared. The land was mutated in the name of Sambhu. He was a tenant under the State. Sambhu had alienated the suit land in favour of Krupasindhu and Paramananda by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.7.1961. Krupasindhu executed a registered gift deed in respect of his 50% share in favour of the plaintiff. After death of his father, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit land. The entry into the M.S ROR is wrong and illegal. 7. Per contra, Mr. Mohapatra, learned AGA submits that neither amalanama pata nor rent roll had been exhibited. The land vested in the State after coming into force of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. The State is the paramount owner of the suit land. The suit land has been recorded in the name of the State. 8. Neither amalanama pata nor the rent roll had been exhibited in the suit. The land vested in the State after coming into force of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. The State is the paramount owner of the suit land. The suit land has been recorded in the name of the State. 8. Neither amalanama pata nor the rent roll had been exhibited in the suit. The plaintiff failed to prove that the exintermediary granted amalanama pata in favour of Sambhu. The land originally belonged to ex-intermediary. The same vested in the name of the State after coming into force of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Magu Sahu v. Bhramarbara Behera and others, 1977 44 CutLT 65, learned appellate court held that rent receipts do not confer any right, nor prove settlement of property. Ekpadia said to have been submitted by the ex-intermediary in favour of Sambhu had not been proved. Non-production of ekpadia is shrouded with mystery. Ext.1, the information slip, cannot confer title in favour of Sambhu. Since Sambhu had no transferable right, the sale deed cannot confer title in favour of Krupasindhu and Paramananda. Consequently the gift deed executed in favour of the plaintiff is of no consequence. There is no perversity in the said finding. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 9. A priori, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed