A person who has been in possession of land for more than 12 years and has been asserting his title to the land can acquire title to the land by adverse possession.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below has preferred this appeal.

2. The plaintiff s case in short is that he purchased the suit land by oral sale on 25-10-54, from Laxmi Bewa, the original owner thereof, for Rs. 95/- and took delivery of possession of the same. Thereafter he continued in peaceful possession of the property and got the same mutated in his name. After the death of Laxmi Bewa on 2-2-55, the plaintiff obtained permission from the municipality for constructing a house on the suit land. The plaintiff remained absent from Baripada for a long time and in 1962 he came to learn that defendant no. 1 was trying to construct a house forcibly on the suit site. So the plaintiff initiated a proceeding u/s 145 Cr. P. C. which ultimately was decided in favour of defendant no. 1. Hence this suit.

3. Defendant no. 1 s case is that he orally purchased the suit land from Laxmi Dei for Rs. 60/- on 30-5-41 and got delivery of possession of the same. Laxmi died in the year 1943. Defendant no. 1 thereafter built a house on that land in November, 1950 after obtaining the necessary permission from the Municipality. The plaintiff s case of purchase of the suit land by him has been denied by this defendant and he asserts that the plaintiff by fraudulent means got the suit property mutated in his name without the knowledge of this defendant. Defendant no. 2 on his own application was impleaded as a party in the suit. His case was that he being the nephew of Laxmi was her nearest heir and accordingly after Laxmi s death he acquired right, title and interest in the suit land and he was in possession of the same. He further asserted that Laxmi never sold the suit property either to the plaintiff or defendant no. 1.

4. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff s suit on the finding that Laxmi died on 11-4-46, and so she could not have sold the suit land to the plaintiff on 25-10-54, as alleged by the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the suit property. It found that Laxmi orally sold the suit property to defendant No. 1 but the said sale was not in accordance with law as the required permission of the State for making the said sale had not been obtained. It however held that Laxmi had delivered possession of the suit propetry to defendant No. 1 in the year 1941 and he was in possession of the same. On the said findings it concluded that defendant No. 1, being in possession of the suit property, was entitled to continue in possession of the same till he was evicted, if at all, by the State in accordance with law. The case of defendant no. 2 was disbelieved and his claim on the suit land was dismissed.

5. The plaintiff as well as defendant no. 2 filed two appeals against the said findings and decision of the trial court and the first appellate court by its common judgment dated 3rd January, 1970 allowed the plaintiff s appeal and dismissed that of defendant no. 2. Thereupon defendant no. 1 only preferred second appeal no. 74/70 in this Court. Defendant no. 2 did not prefer any appeal against the decision of the first appellate court. So the decision dismissing his claim on the suit land stands confirmed. This Court remanded the entire appeal preferred by the plaintiff to the first appellate court for fresh disposal according to law. The appellate court has thereafter arrived at the following findings :

(i) Laxmi had not sold the property to the plaintiff in 1964 and she having died long before 11-3-46, the case of sale by Laxmi to the plaintiff on 25-10-54, is false;

(ii) Laxmi had not also sold the suit land to defendant no. 1;

(iii) Defendant no. 1 somehow or other came to possess the property and effectively continued in possession of the same all through. The plaintiff attempted to exercise possession on that land in 1962 but he failed, and the proceeding u/s. 145 Cr. P. C. also ended in favour of defendant no. 1; and

(iv) The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property.