JUDGMENT :

1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Rourkela (as it was then) in Title Suit No. 29 of 1979.

2. It is pertinent to mention at this stage:-

(I) The appellant nos. 3 to 5 in the appeal under above Item (A) are the defendant nos. 3 to 5 in the trial court. The legal representatives of original defendant no.2 already on record are also the appellants. One of them i.e. appellant no. 2 has died during pendency of this appeal. Since her legal representatives are already on record, her name has been expunged as dead. Those legal representatives of original defendant no. 2 had been brought on record during the trial of the suit.

The original plaintiff who had been arraigned as respondent no. 1 in this appeal having died during the pendency of this appeal now his legal representatives are the respondent nos. 1(a) to 1 (f). Appellant no. 4 was the defendant no. 4 in the trial court and he having died during this appeal, his legal representatives are on record as appellant nos. 4(a) to 4(e). Appellant no. 5 having died during pendency of this appeal, his legal representatives have been brought on record as respondent nos. 5(a) to 5 (d). Respondent no. 2 having also died during pendency of the appeal, his legal representatives have been substituted as respondent nos. 2(a) to 2(c). The original defendant no. 6 who had been arraigned as respondent no. 4, has also died during the appeal and his legal representatives are respondents 4(a) to 4 (d).

(B) The appeal under above item (B) has been filed by the original defendant no. 6 and he having died during the appeal, his legal representatives are now pursuing the same.

There is thus, commonality of the parties, the dispute as well as the questions of law in both the appeals. For this reason, these appeals were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

4. The suit has been filed for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, in the alternative for recovery of possession with further prayer for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos. 7 to 9 from evicting the plaintiff from the suit land and further restraining the other defendants from taking possession of the suit property. The suit has been decreed declaring the title of the plaintiff and permanently injuncting the defendants by restraining them from taking over the possession of the suit property and with further direction to defendant nos. 5 and 6 to give up possession of their respective purchased land within a time frame and on failure, the plaintiff to be at liberty to take possession through the process of the court.

5. The plaintiff’s case is that the suit property described in the schedule of the plaint originally belonged to one Marchia Oram, the defendant no. 2. It is stated that he had alienated the same in favour of the plaintiff on 22.3.51 for a consideration of Rs.95/- and had delivered possession of the same to the plaintiff purchaser.

It may be stated that this document projected by the plaintiff for the purpose of establishing his claim of acquisition of title and coming into possession over the suit land has been proved and marked as Ext.1. So the plaintiff claims to have acquired title through said transaction and also by remaining in possession over the suit property as such since then as its owner by exercising all such rights of ownership thereof. In view of that in the alternative, title over the suit land is said to have been perfected by way of adverse possession. It has been pleaded that in the prefinal stage of the hal settlement operation in the ‘Parcha’, the name of the plaintiff had been indicated in the relevant column meant for the owner. But ultimately, the plots have gone to be recorded in the name of Marchia Oram along wit