Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27256 (ORI)

Mangal Majhi v. Khela Majhi (dead)

2026-01-22

A C Behera

body2026
JUDGMENT : A.C. Behera, J . This 2 nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment. 2 . The appellants in this 2 nd appeal were the defendant Nos.1 to 5 before the Trial Court in the suit, vide T.S. No.46 of 1996 and appellants before the 1 st Appellate Court in the 1 st Appeal vide T.A. No.52 of 1999. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 in this 2 nd appeal were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S.46 of 1996 and respondent Nos.1 & 2 before the 1 st Appellate Court in the 1 st Appeal vide T.A. No.52 of 1999. The respondent Nos.3 to 8 in this 2 nd appeal were the defendant Nos.6 to 11 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S.46 of 1996 and respondent Nos.3 to 8 before the 1 st Appellate Court in the 1 st Appeal vide T.A. No.52 of 1999. 3 . The suit of the plaintiffs (respondent Nos.1 & 2 in this 2 nd appeal) before the Trial Court vide T.S.46 of 1996 was a suit for declaration, confirmation of possession, permanent injunction, for correction of names of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 from the R.o.R. and in alternative recovery of possession, if they (plaintiffs) are found to be dispossessed from the suit properties during the pendency of the suit. 4 . The properties described in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint are the suit properties. 5 . As per the case of the plaintiffs, one Jasmi Majhi was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs. The said Jasmi Majhi was the wife of Khela Majhi. Jasmi Majhi died leaving behind her one daughter and one son i.e. Suna and Bangi (defendant No.8). Suna died leaving behind his two sons and three daughters i.e. Khela (plaintiff No.1), Bhutlang (plaintiff No.2), Jasmi (defendant No.9), Rabi (defendant No.10) and Budhuni (defendant No.11). 6 . In order to have a better appreciation, the family pedigree (genealogy) of the plaintiffs as given in the plaint is depicted hereunder for an instant reference: 7 . The husband of Jasmi i.e. Khela predeceased Jasmi. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.9, 10 & 11 have born out of the wedlock of Jasmi and Khela. After the death of Khela, Jasmi had illicit relationship with one Singrai of the same village. Jasmi predeceased Singrai. Thereafter, Singrai married to one Sunia. The husband of Jasmi i.e. Khela predeceased Jasmi. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.9, 10 & 11 have born out of the wedlock of Jasmi and Khela. After the death of Khela, Jasmi had illicit relationship with one Singrai of the same village. Jasmi predeceased Singrai. Thereafter, Singrai married to one Sunia. The defendant Nos.1 to 7 had born through Sunia (defendant No.5) and Singrai. 8 . In order to have a better appreciation, the genealogy about the relationship between Sunia, Singrai and defendant Nos.1 to 4, 6 & 7 given in the plaint is also depicted hereunder: 9 . The mother of the plaintiffs i.e. Jasmi Majhi was the owner of the suit properties i.e. the properties described in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint and the said properties were recorded in her name exclusively in the previous settlements of the years 1913 & 1948 respectively. After the death of Jasmi, the suit properties left by her (Jasmi) devolved upon her son Suna Majhi exclusively and Suna possessed the suit properties being the exclusive owner thereof. Because, Bangi being the daughter of Jasmi had no right of succession due to the bar of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as they belong to Scheduled Tribe Community. 10. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs that, they (plaintiffs) being Santals, they are guided under old Hindu Law. For which, for the purpose of inheritance and succession, The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not applicable to them. Therefore, daughters of Suna i.e. sisters of the plaintiffs i.e. defendant Nos.9 to 11 had/have no right of inheritance to succeed the suit properties left by Suna. So, the defendant Nos.9 to 11 have also no interest in the suit properties like other defendants. When, Suna died, the suit properties left by him devolved upon the plaintiffs only, as the defendant Nos.9, 10 & 11 were debarred to succeed in view of the bar under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and as such, the plaintiffs have/had been possessing the suit properties being the owners thereof, in which, the defendants including defendant Nos.1 to 5 have no interest. During the Hal settlement operation in the year 1987, the defendant Nos.1 to 5 mischievously gained over the Settlement Authorities and managed to record their names in respect of the suit properties jointly with the plaintiffs illegally and erroneously, though they (defendant Nos.1 to 5) had no interest in the suit properties. When, after illegal recording of the names of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the suit properties jointly with the plaintiffs in the Hal R.o.R of the year 1987, the defendant Nos.1 to 7 tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit properties forcibly and attempted to enter into the same on dated 01.09.1996, to which, plaintiffs objected and without getting any way, they (plaintiffs) approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.46 of 1996 against the defendant Nos.1 to 7 arraying their sisters (defendant Nos.9 to 11) as performa defendants praying for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit properties and to confirm their possession on the same in alternative recovery of possession, if they (plaintiffs) are found to be dispossessed forcibly from the suit properties by the defendant Nos.1 to 7 during the pendency of the suit and also to declare the recording of the names of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the Hal R.o.R. of the year 1987 in respect of the suit properties jointly with the plaintiffs as illegal and to pass other reliefs, to which, they (plaintiffs) are entitled for. 11. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S.46 of 1996, out of all the defendants, only defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed their written statements and contested the suit of the plaintiffs, whereas, other defendants including the sisters of the plaintiffs i.e. defendant Nos.9, 10 & 11 were set ex-parte. In the pleadings of the defendant Nos.1 to 5, they (defendant Nos.1 to 5) disputed to the genealogy given by the plaintiffs in their plaint taking their specific stands that, the plaintiffs have no cause of action for filing the suit. The suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation and the same is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties. According to them (defendant Nos.1 to 5), Jasmi Majhi had married to one Chandu Majhi. Through Chandu Majhi and Jasmi, one son, namely, Singrai and one daughter, namely, Bangi (defendant No.8) had born. The suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation and the same is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties. According to them (defendant Nos.1 to 5), Jasmi Majhi had married to one Chandu Majhi. Through Chandu Majhi and Jasmi, one son, namely, Singrai and one daughter, namely, Bangi (defendant No.8) had born. Therefore, Bangi (defendant No.8) is not the daughter of Khela. One Leke @ Malati is the daughter of Khela. Singrai Majhi married to one Sunia Majhi and out of the wed-lock, Singrai and Sunia, four sons and two daughters i.e. defendant Nos.1 to 4, 6 & 7 had born. After the death of Chandu Majhi, one Khela was working as Baramasia under Jasmi. The said Khela married to one Rape Majhi and out of their wed-lock, one son and one daughter i.e. Suna and Leke respectively had born. Suna Majhi died leaving behind his two sons i.e. plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and two daughters, namely, Rabi and Budhuni (defendant Nos.10 & 11). When, Khela is not the husband of Jasmi and the plaintiffs are not the successors of Jasmi and Khela, then the plaintiffs have no relationship with Jasmi and Khela. They (defendant Nos.1 to 5) are the successors of Jasmi Majhi, but only in order to grab the suit properties from the defendants, they (plaintiffs) have managed to record their names erroneously in respect of the suit properties jointly with them (defendant Nos.1 to 5). The further case of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 in their pleadings was that, the suit properties were recorded in the sabik settlement exclusively in the name of Jasmi and the suit properties were the exclusive properties of Jasmi Majhi and they (defendant Nos.1 to 5) being the successors of Jasmi, they (defendant Nos.1 to 5) are the owners of the same. They (defendant Nos.1 to 5) also admitted partly to the case of the plaintiffs that, they are guided by old Hindu Law and daughters in their community have no right of succession and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not applicable to them in the matter of inheritance and succession due to the bar under Section 2(2) of the said Hindu Succession Act, 1956. After the death of Jasmi and her husband Singrai, the suit properties devolved upon them (defendant Nos.1 to 5) and they (defendant Nos.1 to 5) are the successors of Jasmi and as such, they (defendant Nos.1 to 5) are in possession over the suit properties being the owners thereof, but the plaintiffs are neither owner nor in possession over the same. As the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession in the suit properties, for which, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed against them (defendant Nos.1 to 5). 12 . Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether 8 (eight) numbers of issues were framed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.46 of 1996 and the said issues are:- ISSUES (i) Have the plaintiffs any cause of action to bring the suit? (ii) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation, estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? (iv) Is the suit bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties? (v) Whether Khela Majhi was the husband of Jasmi through whom one son namely Suna and one daughter Bangi were born or Chandu Majhi was the husband through whom one son namely Singrai and one daughter Bangi were born? (vi) Whether the plaintiffs have any right, title or interest over the suit land? (vii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as claimed for? (viii) To what other relief or reliefs, the plaintiffs are entitled to? 13. In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief(s) sought for by the plaintiffs against the defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the suit vide T.S. No.46 of 1996, three witnesses were examined on their behalf including the plaintiff No.2 as P.W.3 and relied upon series of documents from their side vide Exts.1 to 4/b. On the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the plaintiffs, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the contesting defendant Nos.1 to 5 as D.Ws.1 to 4 including defendant No.1 as D.W.4 and relied upon series of documents from their side vide Exts.A to B/3. 14 . 14 . After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the learned Trial Court answered all the issues except issue No.4 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Nos.1 to 5, as issue No.4 was not pressed by the parties and basing upon the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court in issue Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 8, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs as per its judgment and decree dated 11.10.1999 and 02.11.1999 respectively on contest against the defendant Nos.1 to 5 and ex-parte against other defendants and declared the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit properties and confirmed their possession on the same and restrained the defendants permanently from making interference with the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit properties assigning the reasons that, “The plaintiffs are the sons of Suna Majhi and Suna was the son of Jasmi Majhi. The father of the plaintiffs i.e. Suna had born out of the wed-lock of Jasmi and Khela. The reflected status of Jasmi, as the wife of Khela as well as the status of the father of the plaintiffs as the son of Khela in the undisputed/unchallenged three R.o.Rs of the suit properties made in the year 1913, 1948 and 1987 vide Exts.1, 2 & 3 as well as the oral and documentary evidence of the parties are corroborating to the case of the plaintiffs that, they (plaintiffs) are the successors of Jasmi and Jasmi was the wife of Khela, but the defendants are in no way connected/related with Jasmi and Khela. For which, they (defendant Nos.1 to 5) are not entitled to succeed/inherit the suit properties left by Jasmi.” 15 . On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 11.10.1999 and 02.11.1999 respectively passed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.46 of 1996 in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants, the defendant Nos.1 to 5 challenged the same preferring the 1 st Appeal vide T.A. No.52 of 1999 being the appellants against the plaintiffs and other defendants arraying them as respondents. 16 . 16 . After hearing from both the sides, the learned 1 st Appellate Court dismissed to that 1 st Appeal vide T.A. No.52 of 1999 of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 on contest as per its judgment and decree dated 31.08.2002 and 09.09.2002 respectively concurring/confirming the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court in the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No.46 of 1996. 17 . On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the dismissal of the 1 st Appeal vide T.A. No.52 of 1999 of the defendant Nos.1 to 5, they (defendant Nos.1 to 5) challenged the same preferring this 2 nd appeal being the appellants against the plaintiffs and other defendants arraying them as respondents. 18 . This 2 nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial question of law i.e.:- Whether the concurrent findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court as well as learned 1 st Appellate Court concerning status of Jasmi Majhi have been made inconformity with the provisions of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for making the said observations sustainable under law? 19. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the appellants (defendant Nos.1 to 5) and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 (plaintiff Nos.1 & 2). 20 . In order to assail the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and learned 1 st Appellate Court, the learned counsel for the appellants (defendant Nos.1 to 5) relied upon the following decisions i.e. (i) 87 (1999) CLT 737 ; Sanatan Das and Ors Vrs. Ahalya Dei and Ors. (ii) (2002) 10 SCC 315; Karewwa & Ors. Vrs. Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri and Ors. (iii) (2020) 11 SCC 242 ; Pratap Singh & Ors. Vrs. Shiv Ram (dead) through LRs. (iv) Civil Appeal No.2165 of 2009; C. Doddanarayana Reddy (Dead) by LRs & Ors Vrs. C. Jayaram Reddy (Dead) by LRs. 21 . It is the undisputed case of the parties that, “the suit properties were recorded exclusively in the name of Jasmi Majhi in the R.o.Rs of the years 1913 and 1948 vide Exts.1 & 2.” 22 . It is also the undisputed case of the parties that “the suit properties originally belong to Jasmi Majhi. 21 . It is the undisputed case of the parties that, “the suit properties were recorded exclusively in the name of Jasmi Majhi in the R.o.Rs of the years 1913 and 1948 vide Exts.1 & 2.” 22 . It is also the undisputed case of the parties that “the suit properties originally belong to Jasmi Majhi. The R.o.Rs of the suit properties prepared in the year 1913 and 1948 exclusively in the name of Jasmi Majhi have been marked as Exts 1 & 2 without any objection. It has been reflected in the said R.o.Rs of the suit properties prepared in the year 1913 and 1948 vide Exts.1 and 2 that, Jasmi Majhi is the wife of Khela and their caste is Santal, which is Scheduled Tribe. It has also been reflected in the Hal R.o.R. of the suit properties vide Ext.3 prepared in the year 1987 that, the plaintiffs are the sons of Suna Majhi. But, the defendants are the sons of Singrai Majhi and their caste is also Santal.” 23 . The aforesaid unchallenged R.o.Rs vide Exts.1, 2 & 3 of the years 1913, 1948 & 1987 are showing the relationship between Jasmi, Khela and Suna, but the entries in the said undisputed R.o.Rs vide Exts1 & 2 are not showing any relationship of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 with Jasmi and Khela. Because, in the R.o.Rs vide Exts.1 & 2, it has been reflected that, Jasmi Majhi is the wife of Khela. In the R.o.R. vide Ext.3, it has been reflected that, the plaintiffs are the sons of Suna Majhi. 24 . Because, in the R.o.Rs vide Exts.1 & 2, it has been reflected that, Jasmi Majhi is the wife of Khela. In the R.o.R. vide Ext.3, it has been reflected that, the plaintiffs are the sons of Suna Majhi. 24 . P.W.1, who is the neighbour of the plaintiffs and defendants and who is an old man of 70 years, he (P.W.1) has deposed in his evidence during trial that, “Jasmi Majhi is the married wife of Khela and Jasmi Majhi and Khela were living as wife and husband.” P.W.2, who is also an old man like P.W.1 and neighbour of the plaintiffs and defendants, he (P.W.2) has deposed in Para No.3 in his deposition during trial that, “his grandfather Khanda and Khela (husband of Jasmi) were two brothers.” P.W.3 (plaintiff No.2) has deposed in his evidence by stating that, “his father Suna Majhi was the son of Jasmi and Khela.” D.W.1 (witness of the defendant Nos.1 to 5) has deposed in his evidence during trial of the suit answering to the questions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that, “the plaintiffs are the sons of Suna and they are the grandsons of Khela through Jasmi. Khela and Jasmi were living as husband and wife and the plaintiffs are the successors of Jasmi.” After taking the aforesaid evidence of P.Ws1 to 3 and D.W.1 as well as the entries in the undisputed/unchallenged R.o.Rs vide Exts1 to 3 relating to the status of the Jasmi, Khela and Suna, the learned Trial Court as well as learned 1 st Appellate Court, both have concurrently held that, the plaintiffs are the successors of Khela and Jasmi, but the defendants are not the successors of Jasmi and Khela. For which, recording of the suit properties jointly in the names of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 with the plaintiffs in the R.o.R. of the year 1987 is erroneous and they (defendant Nos.1 to 5) have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties. 25 . Now it will be seen, Whether the aforesaid concurrent findings and observations made by learned Trial Court and learned 1 st Appellate Court are sustainable under law? 26 . 25 . Now it will be seen, Whether the aforesaid concurrent findings and observations made by learned Trial Court and learned 1 st Appellate Court are sustainable under law? 26 . In this suit/appeal at hand, the status of Jasmi Majhi has been reflected in the two undisputed documents i.e. R.o.Rs vide Exts.1 & 2 prepared in the year 1913 & 1948 indicating/reflecting that, Jasmi Majhi is the wife of Khela Majhi. It is the case of the contesting defendant Nos.1 to 5 that, Jasmi Majhi is not the wife of Khela Majhi, but she is the wife of Chandu Majhi. 27 . Now it will be seen about the relevancy and admissibility of the status of Jasmi Majhi as the wife of Khela Majhi on the basis of reflection/indication made in the two undisputed/unchallenged R.o.Rs of the year 1913 & 1948 vide Exts.1 & 2 respectively. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Sanatan Das and Ors. Vrs. Ahalya Dei and Ors reported in 87 (1999) CLT 737 that, Record of Rights may not create or extinguish title, the entries in the Record of Rights raise a presumption relating to the relationship. (ii) In a case between Mayadhar Hota and Ors. Vrs. Krushna Chandra Hota (dead) and Ors reported in 2025 (3) Civ.C.C. 334 (Orissa) that, Record of Rights may not create or extinguish title, but entries in Record of Rights raise presumption relating to relationship. (Para 22) 28 . When, the status and relationship of Jasmi Majhi with Khela Majhi as husband and wife was reflected in the undisputed/unchallenged R.o.Rs of the suit properties prepared in the year 1913 & 1948 indicating/reflecting that, Jasmi Majhi is the wife of Khela Majhi, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions, the case of the plaintiffs that, Jasmi Majhi is the wife of Khela Majhi has become probable/believable. Likewise, the unchallenged R.o.R. of the year 1987 vide Ext.3 is also going to show that, the plaintiffs are the sons of Suna Majhi. Likewise, the unchallenged R.o.R. of the year 1987 vide Ext.3 is also going to show that, the plaintiffs are the sons of Suna Majhi. Therefore, after taking the relationship and status of the predecessors of the plaintiffs indicated in the Exts.1 to 3, learned Trial Court as well as learned 1 st Appellate Court both have given their findings concurrently that, the plaintiffs are the successors of Jasmi Majhi and Khela Majhi, but the defendant Nos.1 to 5 are in no way related to Jasmi Majhi and Khela Majhi. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to the above relationships indicated in the unchallenged R.o.Rs vide Exts.1 to 3, it cannot be held that, the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court and learned 1 st Appellate Court that, the plaintiffs are the successors of Jasmi Majhi and Khela Majhi and the defendant Nos.1 to 5 are not their successors cannot be held as erroneous. 29 . The unassailed testimonies of two neighbours of the parties i.e. P.Ws1 & 2 are going to show that, Jasmi Majhi was the wife of Khela Majhi and the father of the plaintiffs was the son of Jasmi Majhi through Khela Majhi. Their evidence relating to the aforesaid relationship between Jasmi Majhi and Khela Majhi being the neighbours of the parties cannot be inadmissible under law. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Basanta Kumar Sahu Vrs. Bhikari Charan Sahu and Ors reported in 1995 (I) OLR 516 that, Evidence of the conduct of relations, friends, and neighbours will be relevant. (Para No.5) (ii) In a case between Gurubari Debi and another Vrs. Sukuri Debi and another reported in ILR 1966 Cuttack 193 and in a case between Jagabandhu Senapati and Ors. Vrs. Bhagu Senapati and Ors. reported in 1973 (1) C.W.R. 809 that, The person deposing must also testify that, he had special means of knowledge about the existence of the relationship either as a member of the family or otherwise. The witnesses as to relationship in this case were no doubt co-villagers and they might have otherwise special means of knowledge about the relationship. reported in 1973 (1) C.W.R. 809 that, The person deposing must also testify that, he had special means of knowledge about the existence of the relationship either as a member of the family or otherwise. The witnesses as to relationship in this case were no doubt co-villagers and they might have otherwise special means of knowledge about the relationship. These facts they must clarify in their evidence and also must say as to how they knew of the relationship as being expressed by conduct. (iii) In a case between Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil and Ors. Vrs. Bapu Koyappa Patil (dead) through LRs and Ors. reported in I (2003) Civ.L.T. 299 (SC) that, opinion as to relationship—Three pedigrees of different periods were before Court to conclude Ext.71. Not open to defendants to raise ground on correctness of finding of fact on issue of relationship. (Para Nos.4 & 5) (iv) In a case between Nath Singh Vrs. Smt. Keshar Kaur reported in 1995 (2) Civil Court Cases 60 (P & H) that, proof of relationship as per Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872—provision does not make the evidence of a person inadmissible merely because he does not happen to be related to the party claiming to prove that relationship. Only the provision requires that, the person appearing as a witness has special means of knowledge on the subject and that knowledge may arise from being a member of family or otherwise. 30 . When, the unassailed testimonies of two old neighbours of the parties i.e. P.Ws1 & 2 are going to show that, they have their special knowledge about the relationship between Jasmi Majhi and Khela Majhi being the immediate neighbours of the parties that, Jasmi Majhi had married Khela Majhi and out of their wed-lock Suna Majhi had born and the plaintiffs are the sons of Suna Majhi, then at this juncture, on the basis of their aforesaid special knowledge regarding the relationship of Jasmi Majhi with Khela Majhi as husband and wife, it is held by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions that, the concurrent findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court and learned 1 st Appellate Court relating to the relationship between Jasmi Majhi and Khela Majhi as husband and wife are not unreasonable. 31 . 31 . The own witness of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 i.e. D.W.1 has admitted to the case of the plaintiffs regarding the relationship between Jasmi Majhi and Khela Majhi as husband and wife answering to the questions of the learned counsel of the plaintiffs during cross-examination that, “the plaintiffs are the sons of Suna Majhi and they are the grandsons of Khela Majhi through Jasmi Majhi. Khela Majhi and Jasmi Majhi were living as husband and wife and plaintiffs are the successors of Jasmi Majhi.” 32 . The aforesaid admission of D.W.1 (witness of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5) to the case of the plaintiffs about the relationship between Jasmi Majhi and Khela Majhi as husband and wife and the plaintiffs are the successors of Jasmi Majhi is ultimately probabilising to the case of the plaintiffs. Because, as per law, a fact admitted by a witness in cross- examination is to be held as established. No further or other proof is required to establish such fact. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:- In a case between Jolina Vrs Pratik Dhiraj Champaneri reported in 2025 (3) Civil Court Cases 730 (Gujarat) that, a fact admitted to cross-examination. No further and other proof thereof is required. (Para 24) So, by applying to the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decision to the aforesaid admission of D.W.1 to the case of the plaintiffs, it is established that, the plaintiffs are the sons of Suna Majhi. Suna Majhi was the son of Jasmi Majhi through Khela Majhi. The plaintiffs are the successors of Jasmi Majhi. 33 . It is very fundamental in law that, issues of civil matters are to be decided on a balance of probabilities. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:- (i) In a case between Sona Bala Bora and Ors. Vrs. Jyotirindra Bhatacharjee reported in 100 (2005) CLT 147(SC) that, In a civil matter, the issues have to be decided on a balance of probabilities. (ii) In a case between Mayadhar Hota and Ors. Vrs. Vrs. Jyotirindra Bhatacharjee reported in 100 (2005) CLT 147(SC) that, In a civil matter, the issues have to be decided on a balance of probabilities. (ii) In a case between Mayadhar Hota and Ors. Vrs. Krushna Chandra Hota (dead) and Ors reported in 2025 (3) Civ.C.C. 334 (Orissa) that, In a civil suit, issues of civil matters are to be decided on balance of probabilities that means case of which side is more probable, same is acceptable under law. (Para 21) 34 . As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is held that, the case of the plaintiffs is probable, but the case of the defendants is improbable and when, in the concurrent findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court and learned 1 st Appellate Court, both the Courts have accepted to the case of the plaintiffs as probable holding that, the pleas of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 are improbable and on the basis of such findings, both the Courts i.e. the learned Trial Court and the learned 1 st Appellate Court have declared the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit properties confirming their possession on the same and both the Courts have injuncted the defendants permanently from making any interference in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties, then at this juncture, the question of interfering with the same through this 2 nd appeal filed by the appellants (defendant Nos.1 to 5) does not arise. For which, the decisions relied upon by the appellants (defendant Nos.1 to 5) indicated in Para No.20 of this judgment are not applicable to this appeal at hand on facts and law as discussed above. Therefore, it is held that, there is no merit in this 2 nd appeal filed by the appellants (defendant Nos.1 to 5). The same must fail. 35 . In result, this 2 nd appeal filed by the appellants (defendant Nos.1 to 5) is dismissed on contest, but without costs. The judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and learned 1 st Appellate Court in T.S. No.46 of 1996 and T.A. No.52 of 1999 respectively are confirmed.