JUDGMENT :- The plaintiff is in appeal against an affirming judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara. He sued for title and recovery of possession of the disputed property upon ejectment of the defendant No. 1 from the house standing on the disputed property. The total extent of the disputed property is 3 decimals and 6 kadis; 2 decimals appertain to plot No. 612 and the remaining to plot No. 613.

2. The plaintiff's contention was that the defendant No. 1 was a permissive occupant of the disputed property which belongs to him. The defendant No. 1 is a carpenter. He and before him his father were doing the work of the plaintiff and were permitted to occupy the house. In paragraphs 10 and 12 of the written statement this permissive occupation has also been admitted in clear terms. Notwithstanding that fact, the learned trial Judge gave a decree in part holding that the plaintiff was entitled to his claim in plot No. 613; but in respect of the house in plot No. 612, the defendant No. 1 had acquired title by adverse possession.

3. Two appeals were filed - one by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant - in the lower appellate court. The learned appellate Judge dismissed both th