Orissa High Court
Chandra Sekhar Das And Anr. vs Giridhari Sahu And Ors. on 20 July, 1989
Equivalent citations: AIR1990ORI129, AIR 1990 ORISSA 129
Author: G.B. Patnaik
Bench: G.B. Patnaik
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiffs are the appellants against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Athgarh, in a suit for declaration of plaintiffs' title and for confirmation of possession as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 is the husband of plaintiff No. 2.
2. Plaintiff's case, in brief, is that the properties described under Lot. No. 1 of Schedule A of the plaint are Brahmottar Niskar land and and under Lot No. 2 of the said Schedule are Pahi land. The entire land originally belonged to one Nilakantha and after his death the property devolved upon his three sons, Hari, Baraju and Madhu. Madhu had been given away in adoption and accordingly had no interest in the property of Nilakantha, Both Hari and Baraju had no issue. Hari had adopted one son called Natabar and Baraju had adopted one son called Lokanath. Natabar died issueless in 1941 leaving beind his widow Mahani and three daughters, Maguni, Ratnamuni and Swaranapata. Ratnamani is plaintiff No. 2 and her husband Chandra Sekhar is plaintiff No. 1. Lot No. 1 of Schedule A was mutuated in the names of Lokanath and Champa, who is wife of Madhu, in Mutation Case No. 822 of 1945-46 and Lot No. 2 was mutated in the names of Lokanath and said Champa in Mutaion Case No. 823 of 1945-46. Champa died leaving behind two daughters Buli and Subarna. Plaintiff No. 1 had purchased 3.84 acres of land which is fully described in Schedule B of the plaint, from Mahani, wife of Loknath, under registered sale deed dated 6-9-1957 and according to the plaintiffs'case after purchase of the said property possession was delivered to him and then he got his name mutated in respect of the said property in Mutation Case No. 245 of 1960-61. After the vesting of Brahmottar Niskar land in the State, plaintiff No. 1 made an application under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act for settlement and -for fixation of fair and equitable rent which was allowed and rent roll was issued in his name. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that rest of the land in Schedule-A was also settled in favour of plaintiff No. 2 in O.N.A. Vesting Case No. 56 of 1966-67 and Patta was issued in her name. The defendants laid claim for settlement of the Brahmottar land but their claim was disallowed by the O.E.A. Collector. So far as Lot No. 2 of Schedule-A is concerned, according to the plaintiffs, Ac.O. 26 decimals of land of the said lot was mutated in the name of plaintiff No. 2 and Maguni, the sister of plaintiff No. 2, in Mutation Case No. 244 of 1960-61 and Mutation Slip had been issued accordingly. After the death of Maguni, there having no issue, plaintiff No. 2 continued in possession as the exclusive owner in respect of Ac.O. 26 decimals of land. The rest Ac.O. 12 decimals of land out of Lot No. 2 was under Lokanath's possession and after his death the property devolved upon plaintiff No. 2 who came into possession and thus the plaintiffs possessed the entire 'A' schedule property. They are also paying rent to the Government in respect of the same and the defendants having no manner of right, title and interest over the same, started a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. They lost in the said proceeding after fighting up to the High Court and yet thereafter they created trouble in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. So the plaintiffs were forced to start proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case Nos. 86 and 87 of 1970. In these proceedings possession of the defendants was declared and so the plaintiffs preferred a revision, but the revision was also dismissed. Hence the plaintiffs were forced to file the suit for the reliefs already stated.
3. Defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 filed a joint written statement and defendant No. 2 filed a separate written statement. According to defendant No. 2, she is the daughter and sole legal heir of late Mahadev Naik who is one of the recorded Sikmi tenants in respect of the suit property and her father having died during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., she was substituted in her father's place and possession was declared in her favour along with other defendants and, therefore, the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed.
The stand of defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 in their written statement is that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party and that the suit is barred by limitation as the same is hit by the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 21 of 1962 for eviction of the defendants from the suit land was dismissed. The allegation in the plaint that Madhu, youngest son of Nilakantha was given away in adoption was denied. According to the defendants' case, after the death of Nilakantha the property devolved upon his three sons and in the settlement of 1924-25 the properties described in Lot No. 1 of Schedule-A were recorded in the names of Champa Dibya, wife of Madhu, Loknath, son of Baraju, and Natabar, son of Harihar, each having five annas four pies share. So far as Lot No. 2 is concerned, in Mutation Case No. 823 of 1945-46, the lands were mutated in the name of Champa Bewa having five annas four pies share and in the name of Lokanath having ten annas eight pies share since he got the share of Natabar who died issueless, and a correction slip had been issued to that effect. Similarly, Champa Bewa got Ac.O. 12 decimals of land and Loknath got Ac.O. 26 decimals of land out of Lot No. 1 of Schedule-A. Champa's share in Lot No. 1 of Schedule-A was mutated in the name of Fakira Tripathy, son of Subarna and Bull Bewa in Mutation Cases NOSECTION 783 and 780 of 1945-46. It is further stated that even though plaintiff No. 1 purchased Ac. 3.84 of land out of Lot No. 1 of Schedule-A which is fully described in Schedule-B, but the said sale was never given effect to and the vendor of plaintiff No. 1 nor plaintiff No. 1 himself ever received possession of the land. With regard to the settlement in favour of plaintiff No. 1, it is alleged that the same is the outcome of fraud and the right of the recorded Sikmi tenants, Mahadev, Kesab and Dama cannot be taken away by virtue of the so-called settlement. It is their positive case that recorded sikmi tenants were in possession of the entire-'A' schedule property and after their death, their legal heirs continue to possess the same and the order of the ex-Ruler of Baramba directing eviction of the sikmi tenants in Misc. Case No. 816 of 1939.40 is illegal and had not been given effect to. The defendants also pleaded a case of acquisition of title by adverse possession.
4. On these pleadings the learned Subordinate Judge framed seven issues. On issue No. 1, the learned Subordinate Judge recorded the following findings :--
i) Madjhu was not given away in adoption to Puri district.
ii) The order of the ex-Ruler in Misc. Case No. 816 of 1930-40 (Ext. 1) is purely declaratory in nature and no decree was passed in pursuance of such order nor executed and plaintiffs failed to prove that the recorded Sikmi tenants were, in fact, evicted.
iii) In view of the status of the Sikmi tenants in the ex-State of Baramba, they are not evictable except by a decree of a Civil Court, as they have occupancy right in the lands held by them as sikmi tax raiyats and since the order of the Ruler is not a decree, the Sikmi tenants cannot be evicted.
iv) Plaintiff No. 1 does not derive any title in respect of Ac. 3.84 decimals of land purchased by him from Mahani, since the alienation was made without taking prior permission of the State and the land being a Brahmottar Tanki, it can be transferred only with prior permission of the State. The said transfer Ac. 3.84 decimals of land is also invalid as Mahani only got Ac. 2.72 decimals out of plot No. 2023, the remaining Ac. 1.12 decimals having been equally divided between Fakira and Buli, the heirs of Champa as would appear from mutation slips Nos. 395 and 396 (Exts. S-1 and R).
v) The so-called mutation proceeding where mutation is effected in the name of plaintiff No. 1 has no evidentiary value since the same was based on untrue evidence.
vi) The abolition of intermediary interest in 1964 and vesting of Brahmottar Tanki Nishkar lands in the State do not affect the rights of the recorded sikmi tenants or their successors since under the laws in force in the Baramba ex-State, sikmi tenants are occupancy raiyats.
vii) Section 39 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act is no bar in entertaining the present suit in the civil Court. The order of the Estate Abolition Collector settling Ac. 3.84 decimals of land with the plaintiff No. 1 being without jurisdiction, Section 39 of the Act will be no bar to entertain the suit.
viii) The order of the State Abolition Collector settling Ac.O.80 decimals of land out of plot No. 2023 in vesting Case No. 56 of 1966-67 really does not confer any right on plaintiff No. 2, since the land itself was not available to be settled and the Estate Abolition Collector has no jurisdiction. The order of the Estate Abolition Collector is also without jurisdiction as no notice had been issued to the sikmi tenants.
ix) The application filed by plaintiff No. 2 being barred by limitation, the Estate Abolition Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and settle the land with plaintiff No. 2.
x) Plaintiff No. I has failed to establish that he took actual delivery of possession of Ac. 3.84 decimals of land after he purchased and view of his failure to establish his title as well as possession, the mutation in his favour could not confer any right.
xi) The sikmi tenants should be deemed to be raiyats within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and as such they are not subject to eviction.
xii) Since plaintiff No. 1 had no title in respect of land purchased by him from Mahani, his purchasers also do not derive any title.
xiii) The defendants are in long possession of the disputed land for a period of more than 30 to 35 years.
xiv) The plaintiff have no right; title or interest in the suit properties and they were never in possession of the same.
On issue No. 2, the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the dismissal of Title Suit No. 21 of 1962 for default will not operate as res judicata in the present suit. On issue No. 3, the Subordinate Judge has found that the defendants are in possession of the suit property after the death of their predecessors-in-interest. On issue No. 4, the Subordinate Judge has found that those defendants who are not the legal heirs of the recorded sikmi tenants have acquired title by way of adverse possession of the land in their respective possession.
On these findings, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit and hence the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal.
5. Mr. Nanda, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants, does not challenge the conclusion of the Subordiate Judge that Madhu was not given away in adoption to Puri district nor does he challenge the finding that sikmi tenants in the ex-State of Baramba had occupancy right on the land. The learned counsel, however, contends that the finding of the Subordinate Judge notwithstanding the order of the Ruler dt. 7-10-1929 (Ext. 1) that the sikmi tenants had not been evicted from the land nor was there any delivery of possession thereof is unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel further urges that in the absence of a positive case in the written statement that the alienation in question under Ext. 3 is invalid as there was no prior permission of the State, the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to enter into that controversy and come to a conclusion. On the question of invalidity of the order of the R State Abolition Collector under Ext. 9 and 7, Mr. Nanda contends that the said order having been passed after making due enquiry and after service of notice, the validity of the same cannot be questioned in a Civil Court in view of Section 39 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Lastly, Mr. Nanda urges that the finding that the defendants have acquired title by adverse possession is contrary to the evidence on record and is unsupportable in the law and, therefore, cannot be sustained.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission of Mr. Nanda, the first question for consideration whether the sikmi tenants had ceased to enjoy their sikmi rights after the order of the Ruler dt. 7-10-1939 as per Ext. 1. Before considering the aforesaid question, it would be necessary to find out the status of sikmi tenant under Baramba State. In the "Final Report of the Survey and Settlement Operations of the Baramba Feudatory State for the years 1924-25, drawn by Khan Shahib Maulvi Shafiquddin Muhammad, Superintendent, Baramba State and approved by the Political Agent and Commissioner, Orissa Feudatory States, Sambalpur," the tenure of sikmi tenant had been described in the following manner :
"There are tenants in respect of the Debottor lands as well as under the Lakhrajdars, Khanjadars and Jagirdar's and Raiyats from times immemorial. They are known as Sikmi. tenants. These Sikmi tenants under the Debottor lands as well as under the Lakhrajdars, Khanjadars, Jagirdars and Raiyats who have heritable right in their tenures, have occupancy right over the lands in their cultivating possession because they enjoy the lands from generation to generation and that the tenure-holders acquiesce in the fact that they cannot oust their Sikmi tenants. This clearly indicates that they have permanent right in their tenancies. In other words it is safe to say that they have occupancy right over their lands. This is in conformity with the custom in vogue in this State as well as in the neighbouring States. The general trend of law also supports this view. Hence Sikmi tenants are in no way inferior to the State settled. Raiyats in the village.........In view of what has been stated in the Survey and Settlement Report, referred to earlier, there is no manner of doubt that a sikmi tenant under Baramba State was an occupancy raiyat of the land and, therefore, derived the status of non-evictability therefrom. According to Mr. Nanda since the Ruler in the ex-State was sovereign in all respects and had combined in himself the legislative, executive and judicial powers, the order of the Ruler that sikmi tenants would cease to enjoy the sikmi rights as per Ext. 1 would amount to the fact that the sikmi tenants lost their rights. The order of the Ruler dated 7-10-1939 as per Ext. 1 clearly indicates that as the sikmi tenants did not clear their dues, they would cease to enjoy the said right over the property of Lokanath. The aforesaid order is clear and unambiguous and declares in no uncertain manner that the sikmi tenants lost their right over the land for non-payment of the dues. The order in question was the order of the Ruler himself who had combined in himself the powers, legislative, executive; and judiciary, and was paramount in all respects. The right of non-evictability of sikmi tenants under the existing law of Baramba State must give way to the order of the Ruler who was supreme authority and consequently, Ext. 1 divests the sikmi tenants of their right of non-evictability. The further fact that defendant No. 5 who was examined as D.W. 6 in his evidence admitted that they were not; paying 'Sanja' after the death of Lokanath is suggestive of the fact that the sikmi tenants had lost their rights and were dispossessed from the land for which question of paying 'Sanja' did not arise. The Ruler in an ex-State was the repository of all powers and, therefore, his order under Ext. 1 divested the sikmi tenants of their rights and consequently, Mr. Nanda's submission on this score must be upheld. Disagreeing with the learned Subordinate Judge, I would, therefore, hold that Ext. 1 divested the sikmi tenants of all their rights in the land in question.
7. Mr. Nanda also contends that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge with regard to possession of the land after the order dated 7-10-1939 are contrary to the evidence on record and, therefore, cannot be supported. According to Mr. Nanda, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 must be held to be trustworthy and their evidence un-equivocally proves the plaintiffs' possession over the land in question. P.W. 1 in his evidence categorically states that as the sikmi tenants did not pay Sanja to the superior tenant, their sikmi right was extinguished by order of the Ruler in Misc. Case No. 216 of 1930-40 and since 1938 he has been living in the house of his father-in-law looking after the cultivation work and was cultivating the suit land. He has further stated that in Vesting Case No. 29 of the 1964-65 fair and equitable rent has been fixed in respect of the land and the Tahsildar has found him to be in possession and accordingly settled the land in his favour. There has been practically to cross-examination of this witness. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, come to the conclusion that the evidence was not acceptable as there was no pleading to that effect. Undoubtedly, the Subordinate Judge has committed an error of record, inasmuch as in paragraph 12 of the plaint, it has been categorically pleaded that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession in respect of the entire 'A' Schedule land and are paying rent to the Government regularly. P.W. 1 further states that though he has been paying rent of the suit property ever since 1940, the defendants pursuant to the order under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., are in possession and till the starting of the said proceeding, plaintiff No. 1 was in possession. In my opinion, the evidence of this witness was illegally discarded by the learned trial Judge from consideration.
P.W. 2 is a neighbouring owner of the land inasmuch as the disputed land and his land are intervened by a road. He stated in his evidence that the disputed land was under attachment for some years and before attachment plaintiff No. 1 was in possession of the same and it is only during the last year defendants took possession. He also states that plaintiff No. 1 was in possession for a pretty long period since the age of discretion of the witness and he never saw defendants possessing the disputed land before attachment. Though he has been cross-examined at length, yet excepting for some minor discrepancy, nothing has been elicited to impeach his testimony.
P.W. 3 is a boundary tenant who was cultivating the land of one Gopal Das situated to the west of the suit land on bhag for a long time. He also states that the land in question was under a receiver for 6 to 7 years and it is only during last year defendants possessed the land and plaintiff No. I was in possession till the appointment of the receiver. According to him plaintiff was getting the land cultivated the 'Halia' named Madan and defendants were never in possession before the receiver took possession of the land. The evidence of this witness who is, the most competent witness being a boundary witness, has not been shaken in any manner during cross-examination. His evidence has been discarded by the Subordinate Judge as he could not produce any document to prove his bhag possession of the land of Gopal. In my opinion, this can hardly be a ground for discarding his testimony.
P. W, 4 was in cultivating possession for the last thirty years of the land of one Dama Fate Singh who is an adjoining owners of the suit land to its north. He also corroborates the evidence of P. W. 3 in respect of the plaintiffs possession prior to the appointment of receiver and that defendants' possession was only for the last one year. Nothing has been pointed out in his cross-examination so as to impeach his evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge seriously viewed his evidence as he was not examined as a witness in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. In my considered opinion, the Subordinate Judge fully erred in law to discard the evidence of P. W. 4 on such flimsy ground. After perusing his evidence at length I am of the opinion that his evidence deserves full consideration and should not have been rejected.
P.W. 5 has his own land to the west of the disputed land intervened by a road and he also fully supports the plaintiffs' case.
In view of the aforesaid unchallenged evidence adduced by the plaintiffs to prove possession, the conclusion of the Subordinate Judge on the question of possession cannot be sustained. Disagreeing with the learned Subordinate Judge, I would, therefore, hold that the plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed land and it is only after the order under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. the defendants came to possess the land. The finding of possession in favour of the plaintiffs to a great extent supports the plaintiffs' case that pursuant to the order of the Ruler the sikmi tenants were evicted and that plaintiffs get possession and continued to be in possession till the order of the magistrate under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C.
8. It would also be appropriate in this connection to notice the documentary evidence in support of possession of the plaintiffs over the land in question. The plaintiffs have produced rent receipts (Ext. 22 series) which had also been produced before the Estate Abolition Collector in O.E.A. Case No. 29 of 1964-65. These documents have not been considered by the learned Subordinate Judge. Payment of rents made by the plaintiffs unequivocally corroborates the plaintiffs' oral evidence of possession over the land in question. Non-consideration of the rent receipts as well as the order-sheet of the Estate Abolition Collector (Ext. J) by the Subordinate Judge vitiates his conclusion with regard to possession. Ext. 3 which is the sale deed executed by Mahani in favour of plaintiff No. 1 also clearly reveals that Mahani gave delivery of possession of Ac. 3.84 out of the suit land in favour of plaintiff No. 1. Further, Ext. 5 which the deposition of late Mahadev Nayak in Mutation Case No. 245 of 1960-61 clinches the issue in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, discarded the statement on the ground that the same was not correctly recorded. There is no basis for the aforesaid conclusion. In this view of the matter, the oral evidence of plaintiffs' possession is fully supported and corroborated by documentary evidence, referred to earlier and, therefore, the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge on this score is set aside and I would hold that the plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed land. In face of the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs, the defence evidence is totally unworthy of credit and further the defendants have not adduced any evidence in support of their case of possession.
9. In view of my conclusion with regard to plaintiffs' possession over the disputed land the finding of the Subordinate Judge on the question of acquisition of title by adverse possession by the defendants cannot be supported. The evidence of D.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 is not only unworthy of credit, but the said evidence has failed to establish the ingredients of adverse possession excepting making a statement in a general and vague manner. The witnesses instead of corroborating each other have contradicted each other. No documentary evidence has been adduced to support their oral statement and in view of overwhelming evidence, oral and documentary, of unimpeachable character adduced by the plaintiffs, the defence evidence is totally unworthy of credit. Accordingly, the conclusion of the Subordinate Judge on the question of adverse possession cannot be sustained and the same is set aside.
10. The learned Subordinate Judge while recording a finding that the Record-of-Rights had not been corrected showing the names of the sikmi tenants after the ex-Ruler's order dt. 7-10-1939 totally over looked the evidence of D.W. 3, the Record-Keeper of Baramba Tahsil Office, who has proved the Khasara of Khata No. 15 (Exts. E and E/1) and states in his evidence that names of Madhdev, Keshab, Sudani and Dama were scored through in red ink both in original as well as in certified copy. In the premises, as aforesaid, disagreeing with the learned Subordinate Judge, I hold that the sikmi tenants ceased to enjoy their sikmi right and were dispossessed pursuant to the order dt. 7-10-1939 and plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, Lokanath came into possession of the same and after him his widow Mahani possessed the land and plaintiff No. 1 after his purchase from Mahani and plaintiff No. 2 after death of Mahani, continued to possess the land and were also in possession on the date of vesting till the order of the magistrate in the Section 145, Cr.P.C. proceeding.
11. I shall now take up the question as to whether the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that Ext. 3 is invalid as the alienation was made without taking prior permission of the State. The plaintiffs aver in the plaint that Ac. 3,84 of land out of Lot No. 1 had been purchased by plaintiff No. 1 from Mahani, wife of Lokanath by registered sale deed on 6-9-1957 on payment of due consideration and possession was duly delivered to him and accordingly he got his name mutated in Mutation Case No. 245 of 1960-61. The defendants in their written statement admitted regarding sale by Mahani and purchase by plaintiff No. 1. There was no assertion in the written statement that the so-called sale was invalid on account of lack of prior permission by the State. Since there was no pleading alleging invalidity of alienation and consequently, there was no issue, the plaintiffs were not required to prove the permission of the State. In that view of the matter, the Sub-ordinate Judge erred in law in recording a finding that the alienation was invalid on account of lack of permission. In the absence of any pleading to that effect in the written statement and in the absence of any issue to that effect, it was not open for the Subordinate Judge to entertain and decide the question. Further, it is not established that the disputed land is Brehmottar Tanki. Under the revenue laws permission of the State is necessary for alienation of Brahmottar Tanki. Unless it is established that the land in question required prior permission of the State for alienation, the Subordinate Judge was also not justified in coming to that conclusion. Consequently, disagreeing with the learned Subordinate Judge, I hold that Ext. 3 is not invalid and, on the other hand, is a valid piece of document conferring valid title on plaintiff No. 1.
12. The next question for consideration is as to what would be the effect of the order of the Estate Abolition Collector, The orders of the Estate Abolition Collector are Exts. 9 and 7 dt. 21-11-1967 and 6-5-1968 respectively. After the vesting of the estate, the Estate Abolition Collector passed orders fixing fair and equitable rent in favour of plaintiff No. 1 as per Ext. 9 and in favour of plaintiff No. 2 as per Ext. 7. The proceedings of the Estate Abolition Collector indicate that all formalities under the Act were completed before the final order of the O.E.A. Collector. The O.E.A. Collector was satisfied abqut due service of notices and also after receipts of the enquiry report from the local Revenue Inspector and coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land on the date of vesting passed the final order. The defendants, on the other hand, had made applications for settlement of the land in their favour but those applications were rejected as per Exts. 10, 12 and 13 on 29-11-1967. Even in those applications the defendants never claimed to have acquired any title by adverse possession. The defendants never challenged the order of rejection passed by the Estate Abolition Collector pursuant to their applications nor moved the appellate forum against the orders of settlement made in favour of the plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, it was not within the competence of the Subordinate Judge to come to a conclusion that those orders were invalid on account of non-following of the procedure. Even on merits, the conclusion that due procedure had not been followed is not supportable by evidence on record. Consequently, I hold that the orders of the Estate Abolition Collector in favour of the plaintiffs under Exts. 7 and 8 cannot be held to be invalid by the Civil Court and, on the other hand, those orders under Exts. 7 and 9 conferred a valid title on the plaintiffs which cannot be taken away by the Civil Court. I also further hold that the Subordinate Judge was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the order of settlement made by the Estate Abolition Collector is a nullity because the application was filed beyond the period of limitation. There was no such pleading to that effect, no issues have been framed and, therefore, there was no justification in entertaining and considering that question and giving a finding thereon. In view of my earlier conclusion on the question of plaintiffs' possession over the land in question and in view of my conclusion that orders under Exts. 7 and 8 made by the Estate Abolition Collector remain unaltered and rights accruing therefrom cannot be taken away and since I have already negatived the defendants' plea of acquisition of title by way of adverse possession, the plaintiffs must be held to have established their right, title and interest over the disputed lands. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge are set aside and the plaintiffs' suit is decreed with costs. The first appeal is allowed.