dismissing the suit. The lower appellate court in allowing the appeal, as has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in Title Suit No. 41 of 1993 and has declared the right, title and interest of the respondent no. 1-plaintiff over the suit land and confirmed her possession restraining the defendant –appellant from interfering with the possession in respect of the suit land, the present appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has come to be filed. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court. 3. The plaintiff’s case is that the suit land stood recorded in the name of Banchhanidhi Patnaik in the settlement record of the year 1923. However, thereafter, the name of Govinda, Ananda, Paramananda and Bachhanidhi came to be entered in the said record by the order in mutation case No. 59 /1945-46. The settlement record of right is said to have been prepared, accordingly in the year 1947. It is stated that although the name of above three were recorded as per the order in the mutation case on the basis of possession of Banchhanidhi, Ananda, Govinda and Paramananda, but in fact, each were possessing some portions of land separately. It is stated that after death of Banchhanidhi, name of his son Prasanna, the defendant no. 15 appeared in the said record along with Ananda, son of Sudarsan and Pramod, the defendant no. 1, son
