JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

This is a plaintiffs’ appeal against confirming judgment.

2. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession. The case of the plaintiffs is that suit land was recorded in the name of their father Balabhadra Gantayat. In the year 1968, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, were permitted to occupy the land by constructing temporary sheds as their houses had been destroyed in fire. In the year 1978, the defendants agreed to vacate the land, but then they did not vacate the land.

3. The defendants filed written statement stating that their predecessors-in-interest had purchased the land by oral sale in the year 1946. They had acquired title by way of adverse possession.

4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. Parties led evidence oral and documentary. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that defendants were in permissive possession of the suit land since 1968. It disbelieved the plaintiffs’ oral purchase. It held that the defendants acquired title by way of adverse possession. Held so, it decreed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiffs challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in T.A. No.8 of 1983, which was eventually dismissed.

5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos.1 to 3 of the memorandum of appeal. The same are :

“1. Whether the courts below have committed an illegality in holding that the defendants have acquired title by way of adverse possession after disbelieving the defendant’s case of oral sale without recording a finding as to the date from which the possession became adverse.

2. Whether the courts below committed an illegality in placing the onus on the plaintiff’s to prove the permissive possession of the defendants.

3. Whether in view of the fact that the suit was filed in the court of the Munsif in 1978, it can be said that the defendants had acquired title by adverse possession as their possession started in the year 1968.”

6. Heard Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Deo on behalf of Mr. N.C. Pati, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents.

7. Mr. Deo, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the original entry of the defendants into the suit land was permissive in nature. Referring to paragraph 13 of the written statement, he contended that the possession of the defendants is permissive. He further contended that one of the foremost requirements for the applicability of the principle of adverse possession is the date from which the possession becomes adverse and the same has to be averred and proved by the defendants. The defendants have not pleaded with regard to the date from which their possession over the suit property became adverse. The learned courts below disbelieved the plea of the oral sale. The learned courts below failed to appreciate that in order to prove adverse possession, the defendants had to specifically prove from which date there was a hostile animus, as their entry into the land is claimed to have permissive in nature. He further submitted that the parties whose possessions are permissive cannot claim title on the basis of adverse possession, unless they show specific overt act and assertion on their part that they have disclaimed the title of the true owners. The findings of the learned courts below are perverse. He relied on the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Thakur Kishan Singh (dead) vs. Arvind Kumar, AIR 1995 SC 73, Dr. Bhargava & Co. and another vs. Sh. Shyam Sunder Seth by L.Rs., AIR 1995 SC 377, Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and others vs. Balwant alias Balasaheb Babusahed Patil (dead) by LRs. & heirs etc., AIR 1995 SC 895, Roop Singh (Dead) through L.Rs. vs. Ram Singh (Dead) through L.Rs., AIR 2000 SC 1485, Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (dead) by L.Rs. vs. Nanilal Harakchand Shah (dead