Adverse possession requires peaceful, open, continuous, and hostile possession, and the claimant must prove the classical requirements of adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

This is a defendants’ appeal against a reversing judgment.

2. The respondents as plaintiffs instituted T.S. No.55 of 1986 in the court of the learned Munsif, Berhampur for declaration of right, title and interest and possession impleading the appellants as defendants. The case of the plaintiffs is that the land measuring area Ac.0.47 cents in Old S.No.1/1A of village Berhampur originally recorded as village site. The same adjoins to the compound of the deity Sri Sri Kasi Viswanath Mohaprabhu. The land was full of ditches. In the settlement operation, the same had been recorded in the Rakhita khata of the Government. The plaintiffs spent an amount of Rs.500/-, filled up the ditches, made it plain and used the same as their threshing floor. Since 1942 till date, they are in possession of the same. In the last settlement operation, the lands were wrongly recorded in favour of the deity Sri Sri Kasi Viswanath Mohaprabhu. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed objection before the Tahasildar, Berhampur, defendant no.1, requesting him to make physical enquiry about their long possession and correct the record of right. The defendant no.1 by letter dated 18.2.1980 directed the concerned R.I. to enquire and report. The R.I. made an enquiry and submitted a report on 26.2.1980 stating that the plaintiffs were in possession since 30 years. Thereafter the plaintiffs applied for mutation of the said plots, but no effect. They filed R.P. Case No.233/80 before the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement for correction of ROR. By order dated 16.2.1983, the Commissioner directed that the suit plot shall be taken from out of khata no.242 and be recorded in Rakhita khata of Government. Accordingly, the suit plots had been recorded in Rakhita khata. It is further pleaded that they were in possession for more than 30 years by the time the order was passed by the Commissioner and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession.

3. The defendants filed a joint written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants is that the suit land had been recorded in the Rakhita khata as per the order of the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement in R.P. Case No.233 of 1980. The plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land. No notice under Sec.80 C.P.C. was issued.

4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck as many as five issues. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. On an analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings, learned trial court came to hold that the entry of the plaintiffs into the suit land was surreptitious and without the knowledge of the defendants. The R.I. had not examined any witness to know who planted the trees. The R.I. is not an expert to give the age of the trees as more than 30 years. He was deputed only to furnish a report with regard to possession of the suit land. He had not verified any document of the plaintiffs. The conclusion reached by the R.I. is without any basis. The report does not reveal the whole truth and accordingly rejected the report. It negatived the plea of the plaintiffs for adverse possession. The suit was dismissed. Felt aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Berhampur, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Berhampur and renumbered as T.A. No.119 of 1988. Learned appellate court laid much credence to the report of the R.I. and held that the same is a document prepared by a Government servant in due discharge of his official duties and as such due credibility and presumption of correctness ought to be attached to the same. The defendants had not proved by any convincing evidence that the report was incorrect. The defendants had failed to prove that they are in possession of the suit land. It further held that the plaintiffs had been in possession of the suit properties continuously,