For the purpose of Article 142 of the Limitation Act, adverse possession for 12 years by several persons in possession successively, even though they do not claim from one another, would bar the true owner's claim, provided their possession is continuous and uninterrupted.

R. L. NARASIMHAM, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of the same judgment and are disposed of together.

( 2 ) BOTH the appeals arise out of the appellate judgment of the Additional District judge, Cuttack partially reversing the judgment of the Munshi 2nd Court Cuttack and decreeing joint possession of the disputed properties between plaintiff No. 2 and the defendants.

( 3 ) THE suit property consists of a very valuable house site appertaining to darpattadar Khata No. 1349 in the town of Cuttack, bearing plot No. 2173 and No. 2174 of Current Settlement.

( 4 ) THERE was previous litigation in respect of the same property between plaintiff no. (2) and defendant No. 1 and some other defendants. The judgment of the trial court in that case was delivered on 29-4-1950 and the suit under appeal was filed on 8-5-1950 a week after the dismissal of the earlier suit. That suit was taken up to the High Court on second appeal and the decisions of the two lower courts were confirmed by the High Court on 2-4-1956. In that litigation the main question for decision was whether the disputed property belonged to Kanungo Durgacharan mohanty only, or else whether his brothers had interest in the same. It was finally decided that his brothers had no interest in the property.

( 5 ) FOR the purpose of the present litigation therefore, it may be taken as concluded that the disputed property belonged to Kanungo Durgacharan Mohanty. The suit under appeal was, brought by his son Kanungo Bishnucharan Mohanty (through his first wife) who was the sole plaintiff at the commencement of the suit. Plaintiff no. 2 claims to have purchased his interest in the suit house and was subsequently added as plaintiff No. 2. Defendant No. 2 is the second wife of durgacharan and defendants 3 to 8 are her children.

( 6 ) THE said Durgacharan Mohanty entered into an agreement for the sale of the disputed property with one Prana Dhan Das (since dead) on 8-10-1937 (Ex. E) and (according to defendant No. 1) put Pranadhan Das in possession of the property on that date. Subsequently on 7-5-38, a registered sale deed (Ex. 1) was executed by Durgacharan Mohanty in favour of defendant No. 1 who is none else but a daughter of Prana Dhana Das and she remained in possession of the same thereafter. Thus, according to defendant No. 1 full title and possession over the disputed property passed to her.

( 7 ) THE case of plaintiff No. 1 however was that the suit property was the ancestral property of his father Durgacharan, that there was no legal necessity for the sale in favour of defendant No. 1 and that consequently the plaintiff's interest was unaffected by the sale. He even went to the length of saying that the sale deed was collusiva and fraudulent, that there was no passing of consideration, and that no title passed. Hence he asked for a declaration that the title to the properties still subsisted with the plaintiff and with defendants 2 to 8 (the widow and the other sons of Durga Charan ). There was also a prayer for confirmation of possession of those persons in respect of the property. But there was also an alternative prayer that they be ordered to recover possession of the properties in case they be found to have been dispossessed. Subsequent to the commencement of the suit as already pointed out, plaintiff No. 2 purchased the interest of plaintifi no. 1 and also of defendant No. 3 on 13-11-1956 and he is the main contestant in this appeal.

( 8 ) THE lower appellate Court held that the property was' the ancestral property of durgacharan and not his self-acquisition and that consequently his sons also had a share in them. He held however that the sale by Durgacharan in favour of defendant No. 1 Ex. 1 was genuine and that a substantial portion of the consideration money was actually paid. But he also held that the sale was not for legal necessity and that consequently the interest of Bishnu Charan Mohanty in the property did not pass by the sale. He further held that