JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This is plaintiffs appeal against a reversing judgment in a suit for declaration of occupancy right and permanent injunction. 2. An area Ac.4.75 dec. out of Ac.91.80 appertaining to sabik khata no.1, sabik plot no.5 corresponding to hal khata no.2, hal plot no.1 is the subject matter of dispute. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to Ramakrushna Pattnaik, ex-intermediary. It was a sandy tract. With the permission of ex-landlord, he reclaimed the same and planted casuarina trees. The ex-intermediary leased out the land to him in the year 1942 and executed a permanent lease deed. He used to pay rent to the ex-intermediary. While matter stood thus, the land vested in the State in the year 1953. He became a deemed tenant under the State after vesting. The ex- intermediary had submitted jamabandi in his favour. Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Nimapara had prepared tenants ledger and accepted rent. The land was wrongly recorded in the name of the Forest Department in the ROR. When the defendant disturbed his possession, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed five issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary. Learned trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land from 20.5.45. He was a tenant under the ex-intermediary. He was paying rent. After vesting, he became a deemed tenant. Felt aggrieved, the defendant filed appeal before learned District Judge, Puri, which was subsequently transferred to the court of learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, F.T.C. No.-I, Puri and renumbered as T.A. No.56/8/34 of 2002/68/96. Learned appellate court held that in the plaint, it is stated that the ex-intermediary granted lease in the year 1942, but the unregistered lease deed, Ext.-1 reveals that the same was executed on 20.5.45. There is variance between pleading and proof. The lease deed requires compulsory registration. There is no pleading that the plaintiff had paid salami. The rent receipts, Ext.2 and Ext.2/a are of the year 1945 and 1949 respectively. Another rent receipt was of the year 1960, Ext.4. The lease deed and rent receipts does not bear the seal or rubber stamp of the ex- intermediary. The lease deed requires compulsory registration. There is no pleading that the plaintiff had paid salami. The rent receipts, Ext.2 and Ext.2/a are of the year 1945 and 1949 respectively. Another rent receipt was of the year 1960, Ext.4. The lease deed and rent receipts does not bear the seal or rubber stamp of the ex- intermediary. The genuineness of the rent receipts is not free from doubt. Rent was accepted without prejudice. The estate vested in the State in the year 1953 free from all encumbrances. D.W.3 stated that the ex-intermediary had not filed any jamabandi in respect of the suit village. There is no evidence that the plaintiff was a settled raiyat of the village. He is not an occupancy raiyat. Held so, it allowed the appeal. 5. This appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos.F and G of the appeal memo. The same are: "(F) Whether the appellate court below is justified in holding that no written permission was obtained by the plaintiff as required under Section 61 of Orissa Tenancy Act when the lease of creation of tenancy has been proved by the plaintiff as per Ext.1 ? (G) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be a tenant under the State as per the provision of Section 8(1) of the Estate Abolition Act ?" 6. Heard Mr. Suresh Chandra Mohanty, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Swyambhu Mishra, learned A.S.C. for the respondent. 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the plaintiff was a tenant under the ex-intermediary. He reclaimed the suit land and planted casuarina trees. The ex- intermediary executed a permanent lease deed on 20.5.45, Ext.1. He used to pay rent to the ex-intermediary. After coming into force of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act ("O.E.A. Act"), the land vested in the State. The plaintiff became a deemed tenant. He further submits that the Tahasildar had submitted ekpadia in favour of the plaintiff, whereafter the tenants ledger was opened in his name. He further submits that the plaintiff is a settled raiyat of the village and became an occupancy raiyat. 8. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned A.S.C. for the respondent submits that Ext.1 is an unregistered lease deed. The same requires compulsory registration. The jamabandi register has not been proved. The rent receipt was granted by the State without prejudice. He further submits that the plaintiff is a settled raiyat of the village and became an occupancy raiyat. 8. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned A.S.C. for the respondent submits that Ext.1 is an unregistered lease deed. The same requires compulsory registration. The jamabandi register has not been proved. The rent receipt was granted by the State without prejudice. There is no pleading that the plaintiff is a settled raiyat of the village. Learned appellate court held that Ext.1 is a suspicious document. In the plaint, it is stated that the ex-intermediary had executed a lease deed in 1942. But Ext.1 shows that the same was executed in the year 1945. In Ext.1, there is no seal and signature of the ex-intermediary. He places reliance on the decisions of this Court in the case of Government of Orissa and another vs. Baidhar Mahapatra and others, 2018 (I) OLR-358 and Purna Chandra Naik vs. State of Orissa, 2018 (I) CLR-621. 9. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the counsel for both the parties, it will be necessary to set out some provisions of the Orissa Tenancy Act ("O.T. Act"). Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.5 of the O.T. Act defines raiyat. "Raiyat" means primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it by himself, or by members of his family or by hired servants, or with the aid of partners, and includes also the successors-in-interest or persons who have acquired such a right. Sec.23 defines the expression "Settled Raiyat". Sec.24(2) provides that every person who being a settled raiyat of a village within the meaning of Sec.23 held land as a raiyat in that village at any time between the tenth day of September, 1891 and the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to have acquired a right of occupancy in that land under the law then in force; but nothing in the sub-section shall effect any decree or order passed by a Court before the commencement of this Act. There is no pleading that the plaintiff is a settled raiyat of the village. No foundational facts exist. 10. The next question crops up as to whether the plaintiff was a tenant under the ex-intermediary and after vesting of estate, he became a deemed tenant. The assertion of the plaintiff is that the ex-intermediary had executed an unregistered lease deed in his favour vide Ext.1. No foundational facts exist. 10. The next question crops up as to whether the plaintiff was a tenant under the ex-intermediary and after vesting of estate, he became a deemed tenant. The assertion of the plaintiff is that the ex-intermediary had executed an unregistered lease deed in his favour vide Ext.1. Ext.1 shows that plaintiff was 16 years of old. He was minor at the relevant point of time. He was not represented by his natural guardian. Ext.1 does not bear the seal and signature of the ex-intermediary. The same requires compulsory registration. Though the plaintiff asserts that the ex-intermediary granted lease, Ext.1, in the year 1942, but Ext.1 shows that the same was executed in the year 1945. There is variance between pleading and proof. Thus no reliance can be placed on Ext.1. 11. In Purna Chandra Naik vs. State of Orissa, 2018 (I) CLR- 621, this Court referred to the Full Bench decision of Patna High Court and held: "9. In Ram Nath Mandal and others Vrs. Jojan Mandal and others, AIR 1964 Pat-1, the Full Bench of Patna held that under Section 117 of the T.P.Act, a lease for agricultural purposes is not necessary to be made by a written instrument and it may be effected by an oral agreement in which case the question of registration will not arise. However, if the transaction is reduced to writing, then in the case of a lease from year to year or for any term exceeding a year or reserving a yearly rent, registration would be required under Section 17 of the Registration Act, and if unregistered the lease will be inadmissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act and other evidence of its terms will be precluded under Section 91 of the Evidence Act. In that case, the claim of creation of tenancy on the basis of rent receipts in pursuance of an oral agreement was negatived on the ground that no such case had been put forward by the plaintiff in the plaint." 12. The rent receipts were accepted without prejudice. In Government of Orissa and another vs. Baidhar Mahapatra and others, 2018 (I) OLR-358, this Court held: "16. The rent receipts had been granted without prejudice. The rent receipts were accepted without prejudice. In Government of Orissa and another vs. Baidhar Mahapatra and others, 2018 (I) OLR-358, this Court held: "16. The rent receipts had been granted without prejudice. This Court in the case of Magu Sahu v. Bhramarbara Behera and others, 44 (1977) CLT 65 held that 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. Acceptance of rent under such rent receipts cannot confer any tenancy interest." The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 13. In the wake of aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.