The main legal point established is the stringent requirements for establishing adverse possession, including the need for physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious, and hostile possession for a period exceeding twelve years. The court also emphasized the contradictory nature of claims based on title and adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

This is a defendants’ appeal against confirming judgment.

2. Plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit for declaration of title over the suit land, confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession in the event he is dispossessed during pendency of the suit and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that Chamu Mohanta, his grand-father, was the owner of the Schedule ‘A’ land. In the sabik as well as hal settlement, Schedule ‘A’ land had been recorded in the name of Chamu. Chamu had two sons, namely, Shankar and Bauribandhu. Shankar died unmarried. After death of Chamu, his only son, Bauribandhu inherited Schedule ‘A’ land. He was in possession of the same. Bauribandhu died in the year 1980 leaving behind him two sons, namely, Nishikanta and Kailash, the plaintiff. After death of Bauribandhu, there was a partition of the landed properties between Nishikanta and the plaintiff. Schedule ‘A’ land fell to the share of the plaintiff. He is in possession of the same. Taking advantage of his absence, on 24.4.95, the defendants forcibly entered into Schedule ‘A’ land, erected some wooden pillars over the suit plot and started construction of a thatched house. He protested the action of the defendants. But then, the defendants turned a deaf ear. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

3. The defendants entered contest and filed a joint written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. They have admitted that the suit land had been recorded in the name of Chamu Mohanta. They denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit land. According to the defendants, Chamu, the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff, had another brother namely, Jeeban, who is dead. Both Chamu and Jeeban inherited the suit land after death of their father. Finding that the suit land was insufficient for his maintenance, Chamu left for village Gopinathpur and settled there permanently leaving the suit land under the care and custody of his brother, Jeeban. Jeeban possessed the suit land for about 7 to 8 years. On 3.3.1949, Jeeban sold the suit land in favour of Pitambar Tanti @ Gadu Tanti, husband of defendant no.1 and elder brother of defendant nos.2 and 3 for a consideration of Rs.60/- by means of an unregistered sale deed and delivered possession to him. Pitambar and the defendants were in possession of the suit land. After death of Pitambar, the defendants are in possession of the suit land and constructed a dwelling house. They have perfected title by way of adverse possession.

4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eight issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their case. Learned trial court decreed the suit with the finding that in the sabik ROR, Ext.1, of the year 1931 as well as the Hal ROR, Ext.2, the suit land had been recorded in the name of Chamu. The unregistered sale deed, Ext.A, does not disclose the khata no. or plot no. or even area of the land sold through it. It further held that the defendants are not in possession over the suit land for more than the statutory period. The defendants had not acquired title by way of adverse possession. The suit land was the exclusive property of Chamu Mohanta. The plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. The unsuccessful defendants filed T.A. No.3 of 1997 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Karanjia, which was eventually dismissed. It is apt to mention here that during pendency of the second appeal, the appellant no.1-defendant no.1 died. The legal heirs have been substituted.

5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos.12(a) and (b) of the appeal memo. The same are:

“12(a) Whether in the fact and circumstances of the case, the courts below erred in law in disbelieving the case of adverse possession against the true owner of the suit land ?

(b) Whether r