JUDGMENT : A. K. Rath, J - This is a plaintiff's appeal against confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that Khardanga was the common ancestor of the parties. He died leaving behind his two sons, Kunjal and Sundar. Kunjal died leaving behind his son Bala @ Balan. Bala died leaving behind his son, Ganthia. Plaintiff is the widow of Ganthia. Sundar died leaving behind his daughters, defendant nos.1 to 4. On 06.07.1948, Sundar executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of Ganthia. He was in possession of the suit lands. The defendants were not in possession of the lands. During the current settlement operation, the defendants created disturbance in her possession. She initiated a proceeding under Sec.144 Cr.P.C. against them. The same was converted into a proceeding under Sec.145 Cr.P.C. Possession of the defendants was declared. In the year 1972, the defendants took possession of the land. With this factual scenario, she instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. Defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that Ganthia was a stranger to the family of Kunjal and Sundar. He was not the son of Bala. Bala pre-deceased Kunjal. After death of Kunjal, his branch was extinct. The lands measuring an area of Ac.12.73 dec. Khata No. 6 were acquired by Kunjal and his brother, Sundar. The lands were recorded in the name of Kunjal. Kunjal pre-deceased Sundar. Thus the share of Kunjal devolved upon Sundar. Sundar died 25 years back leaving behind his widow and defendants. During the life time of Sundar, he acquired Ac.5.83 dec. of lands appertaining to Khata No. 13 in village Barkani for a consideration of Rs.170/-. The lands measuring Ac.12.73 dec. along with these lands acquired earlier were recorded in the name of Sundar. Thus Sundar was in exclusive possession of the lands. After his death, his widow and the defendants succeeded to the property. The wife of Sundar mortgaged Ac.5.83 dec. of lands out of Khata No. 13 in favour of Padmabati Beheraani on 14.03.1953. The lands were redeemed on 31.03.1961. The lands were not relinquished by Sundar in favour of Ganthia. Neither the plaintiff nor her husband was in possession of the lands. 4. The wife of Sundar mortgaged Ac.5.83 dec. of lands out of Khata No. 13 in favour of Padmabati Beheraani on 14.03.1953. The lands were redeemed on 31.03.1961. The lands were not relinquished by Sundar in favour of Ganthia. Neither the plaintiff nor her husband was in possession of the lands. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eleven issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their case. On a threadbare analysis of the evidence on record as well as pleadings, learned trial court came to hold that Ganthia is not the son of Bala. Plaintiff and her husband were not in possession of the suit land. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bolangir, which was subsequently transferred to the court of learned Additional District Judge, Bolangir and re-numbered as T.A. No. 2/9 of 1984-86. The appeal was eventually dismissed. 5. The appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law enumerated in Ground No.3 of the appeal memo. The same is:- "3. For that non-consideration of the material documentary evidence namely Ext.1 and 1-A has vitiated the judgment. The trial court without examining the effect of these documents has simply brushed them aside merely saying that filing of the voter list would not improve matters. The appellate court has not referred to this aspect of the case at all ?" 6. Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.H. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that Khardanga was the common ancestor of the parties. He died leaving behind two sons; Kunjal and Sundar. Kunjal died leaving behind his son Bala @ Balan. Ganthia is the son of Bala. Plaintiff is the widow of Ganthia. Sundar died before coming into operation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendants, daughters of Sundar are not entitled to succeed to the property. There is ample evidence on record that Ganthia is the son of Bala. The voter list vide Ext.1 shows that Pina is the wife of Ganthia. Plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1. She has stated that her husband is the son of Bala. The courts below, on untenable and unsupportable ground, discarded the evidence of P.W.1. 8. There is ample evidence on record that Ganthia is the son of Bala. The voter list vide Ext.1 shows that Pina is the wife of Ganthia. Plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1. She has stated that her husband is the son of Bala. The courts below, on untenable and unsupportable ground, discarded the evidence of P.W.1. 8. On an anatomy of pleadings and evidence, the courts below concurrently held that plaintiff, P.W.1 failed to prove that her husband, Ganthia is the son of Bala. This is essentially a finding of fact. There is no perversity or illegality in the said finding. Reliance placed on voter list vide Ext.1 is totally misplaced. Ext.1 does not disclose that Ganthia is the son of Bala. There is no evidence on record, oral and documentary, that Ganthia is the son of Bala. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 9. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed