p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK R.S.A. No.401 of 2025 CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 06.01.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. This is a plaintiff’s appeal against a confirming judgment. The judgment passed by learned District Judge, Jajpur in R.F.A No.71 of 2024, on 16.05.2025 followed by decree is impugned, whereby the judgment dated 05.10.2024 followed by decree passed by learned Senior Civil Judge (LR-LTV), Jajpur in C.S. No.429 of 2022 in dismissing the suit was confirmed. 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of his right, title and interest along with that of proforma defendant No.10. His case is that he and the proforma defendant are entitled to get 8 annas share in respect of the suit Hal plots measuring Ac.0.225 out of Ac.0.43. They took steps to rectify the ROR of Khata No.213 recorded as Rakshit by approaching the Commissioner of Consolidation and Settlement Land Records but the legal heirs of Arjun Das namely, Natabar Das and Gobardhan Goutam Charan Das .… Appellant Represented by Mr. Kumarbar Nayak, Advocate -Versus- Bhabagrahi Das & Others .… Respondents Represented by Order No. 01. . p. 2 Das managed to get their names recorded though not entitled. The suit property was purchased by Jai Das and Dai Das. The legal heirs of Krushna Das namely, defendant Nos.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are entitled to only four annas share i.e., Ac.0.12 but they managed to get their names recorded over Ac.0.15 decimals, which the plaintiff and the proforma defendant are possessing. Since the defendants tried to disposes them, the suit was filed. 4. The defendants, despite valid service of summons did not appear for which they were set ex-parte. After going through the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the trial Court found that the plaintiff and proforma defendant are the successors of Jai Das, while defendant Nos.4 to 8 are successors of Dai Das. The plaintiff has not clarified how he along with the proforma defendant got specific possession over the suit land in the absence of any evidence of partition having been effected by metes and bounds between the successors of Jai Das and Dai Das. The suit was thus, dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff carried appeal. Learned District Judge after re-appreciating the evidence found no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The first appellate Court specifically found that the suit land measuring Ac.0.03 decimals claimed to be under the possession over the plaintiff and proforma defendant was not properly described. Secondly, the plaintiff only claimed declaration without seeking injunction and thus, the suit was defective. 6. Being further aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal. 7. Heard Mr. Kumarbar Nayak, learned counsel for the Plaintiff- Appellant. p. 3 8. Mr. Nayak would argue that the findings of both the Courts below are erroneous inasmuch as the order passed in the Objection Case No.386 of 64 was wrongly disposed of directing recording of Plot No.798/990 in favour of some co-sharers. Natabar Das and Gobardhan Das are not entitled as per succession or inheritance. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court wrongly held that the plaintiff and the defendants have equal rights over the suit property. 9. Having perused the impugned judgments and upon consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, this Court is of the considered view that no substantial question of law is involved and that the appeal is directed against pure questions of fact. To amplify, it has not been demonstrated as to how the finding of the trial Court, based on genealogy given in the plaint that the plaintiff and proforma defendant are the successors of Jai Das and defendant Nos.4 to 8 are the successors of Dai Das, is erroneous. Therefore, the consequential finding that in the absence of evidence of the properties being subjected to partition by metes and bounds, the plaintiff, proforma defendant and defendant Nos.4 to 8 have rights over the suit plots cannot be questioned. 10. Moreover, the trial Court found that the plaintiff despite claiming to be in possession over a specific portion of the property could not prove as to how he came over possession in the absence of any evidence of partition. The first appellate Court also re- appreciated the evidence and has rendered findings entirely based thereon. 11. It is trite law that findings of fact cannot be gone into in second appeal unless they are shown to be perverse or such as no prudent person would arrive at. Such is not the case at hand. p. 4 12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is not inclined to admit the appeal as it finds no substantial question of law involved to be decided. The appeal is thus, dismissed not being admitted. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Puspanjali Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.