The burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their right, title, and interest over the land, and to prove adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants have called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Phulbani in Title Appeal No. 05 of 2002 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Baliguda in Title Suit No. 01 of 2000.

The appellants as the plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land as also permanent injunction against the defendant State and its officials.

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 land in mouza G. Udayagiri prior to the Hal settlement completed in the year 1976 had remained un-surveyed. Therefore, sales and purchases were being made by the owners of the landed properties describing the lands involved in the transactions with their boundaries. It is stated that one Beda Anandeswar Naik was the original owner of the suit land measuring 16 cubits X 45 cubits. He had sold the same to one Gunjara Dalabebera for consideration of Rs. 60/-by executing a un-registered sale-deed. Subsequently on 16.01.1997, Bipin Chandra Dalabehera, the grandson of Gunjara had sold a portion of the suit land measuring 7 cubits X 45 cubits to the plaintiff no. 1 for consideration of Rs. 2,000/- executing an un-registered sale-deed, in that regard, and delivering the possession of the same to the said vendee. Thereafter, he possessed the rest portion till his death, whereafter his wife, the plaintiff no. 3 is in possession of the same. It is stated that in the year 1978, Bipin applied for demarcation of the suit land leading to the registration of Revenue Misc. Case No. 316 of 1978 and there the land was demarcated and report was sent to the effect that the land in question was a private land. It is next alleged that in the current settlement, the suit land has been erroneously recorded in favour of the State. So, taking advantage of the wrong entry, encroachment cases were initiated against the plaintiff no. 1, 2 and 3.

4. The defendants coming to contest the case denied the factum of sale of portions of the suit as stated in the plaint. They further assert that the suit plots have been correctly recorded in the settlement in favour of the State and the encroachment cases have been rightly booked against the plaintiffs for their eviction from the suit land and removal of unauthorized occupation. It is also contended that one of the suit plots is a piece of Gochara land, whereas over another, there lies a road used by the villagers at large and those are highly objectionable which also for the reasons are not available and cannot be settled being opposed to law.

5. Faced with above rival pleadings, the trial court framed as many as twelve issues. Rightly, taking up issue no. 1 for decision as to whether the suit land is a private land or not, upon examination of evidence both oral and documentary, finding has been recorded that those are Government lands. Next going to issue no. 2 and 3 as regards the sales of portions of suit land by Beda Anandeswar Naik and Bipin Chandra Dalabehera, the trial court’s findings have remained that these are all transactions in pen and papers and have never clothed the purchasers with the title in respect of land described therein. Practically answers on these issues have led to record the finding that the settlement entries are correct. In view of above, the trial court dismissed the suit.

In the appeal, the lower appellate court in view of the challenge made before it framing the points for determination as mandated in law has taken up the examination of the sustainability of the finding of the trial court on the score as to if that the suit land is a piece of private land. Upon analysis of evidence, the finding of the trial court has been affirmed that it is not a piece of private land. Very rightly it has ne