The initial burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, and the onus shifts to the defendant to disprove the plaintiff's case. The Orissa Tenancy Act governs the acquisition of occupancy rights, and the court emphasized the need for sufficient evidence to establish a claim.

JUDGMENT

B.K. PATEL, J.

Unsuccessful plaintiffs are in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.6.1990 passed by learned Subordinate Judge (now Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in Title Suit No.165 of 1984, a suit for declaration of occupancy status over the suit land or, in alternative, for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land by adverse possession.

2. Plaintiff’s case is that the suit land originally appertained to Anabadi Holding of Killa-Patia as per the C.S. Record of Rights published in the year 1931. Plaintiffs were settled Rayats of village Patia and tenants under the Raja of Patia. Plaintiff nos.1 to 4 and plaintiff’s no.5 brother late Ganeswar Jena reclaimed the suit land by clearing the jungle and wild growths, made the suit land fit for cultivation and remained in continuous and peaceful possession over the suit land by raising different crops and vegetables since long. After death of Ganeswar Jena, the plaintiffs continued to be in peaceful, undisturbed and continuous possession over the suit land. The Estate of Patia was purchased by Raja of Kanika in an auction sale in 1931 and as such the Raja of Kanika became the proprietor in respect of Estate of Patia including the suit land. The plaintiffs being the settled Rayats of the suit village, thus, acquired valid title in respect of the suit land in 1943 since when they are in possession over the suit land and are paying rent to and obtaining rent receipts from the Raja of Kanika. However, during Hal settlement operation the suit land was wrongly recorded in Government Rakhit Holding. After final publication of the Hal Records of Rights the defendants who represent the State Government, contemplated to lease out the suit land in favour of outsiders. Hence, the suit.

3. Defendants filed written statement denying plaintiffs? assertions. Defendants resist plaintiffs? assertion to have reclaimed the suit land and to have been in possession over the same or to have acquired occupancy right over the suit land. It is pleaded that the plaintiffs were never in possession over the suit land. Defendants also deny that the plaintiffs were settled Rayats of village Patia.

4. Considering the rival pleadings, following issues were settled by the trial court:- (i). Is the suit maintainable as laid? (ii). Is there any cause of action to bring the suit? (iii). Whether the plaintiffs have acquired occupancy status in respect of the suit land or have acquired the occupancy status by adverse possession? (iv). To what relief/reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to?

5. In order to substantiate their case, plaintiffs examined five witnesses including plaintiff no.1 as P.W.1 and also placed reliance on the documents marked Exts.1 to 17. No evidence oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the defendants.

6. On an appraisal of evidence on record, in answering the vital issue no.(iii), the trial court held the plaintiffs to have failed to establish that they are in possession over the suit land at any point of time since 1943 or to have acquired any occupancy status or any title by way of adverse possession over the suit land. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.

7. In assailing the impugned judgment and decree it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that plaintiff’s claim for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land is hinged on the claim of acquisition of occupancy right being in cultivating possession for more than the statutory period. In order to substantiate their case plaintiffs not only placed reliance on the rent receipts Exts.1, 1/A and 1/B but also on Ext.17, the deed of settlement. Ext.17 was proved by P.W.5, an Amin who was working under Sarbeswar Mishra, the then Tahasildar of Kanika Estate. That apart, plaintiff’s assertion of possession over the suit land were proved by evidence of P.W.1 which is corroborated by evidence of P.Ws. 2,3 and 4. Trial court committed gross error in appreciation of eviden