Possession referred to a lawful title cannot be considered adverse, and mere possession for a long time is not sufficient to establish adverse possession without the classical requirements of adverse possession being pleaded and proved.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

1. This appeal is by defendants 1 to 3 against a reversing judgment.

2. The plaintiff-respondent-1 instituted the suit for declaration of right, title, interest over the suit property, recovery of possession, permanent injunction and mesne profit. The case of the plaintiff was that Chhelia Bhainsal had two sons, namely, Labanidhar and Natabar. Hrushikesh and Sukadev, plaintiff, are sons of Labanidhar. Jambobati, defendant no.4 is the daughter of Hrushikesh. Natabar and his wife-Malabati died issueless. Chhelia, Labanidhar and Hrushikesh are dead. According to the plaintiff, Labanidhar and Natabar were separated in mess and property. The lands were separately recoded in their names in Sabik Record of Right. Natabar and his wife-Malabati died issueless. Hrushikesh and the plaintiff succeeded to the share of Natabar. Both of them were in possession of the ancestral lands separately for the sake of convenience. There was no partition by metes and bounds. As per the amicable arrangement between two brothers, the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit land. Hrushikesh died in jointness with the plaintiff in or about the year 1969. The plaintiff inherited the entire ancestral family property including the suit lands to the exclusion of Jambodati daughter of Hrushikesh, defendant no.4. The defendants 1 to 3 have no semblance of interest and possession over the suit land. They initiated a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in respect of the suit land and got the ex parte order on 7.11.1982. The order made absolute on 1.1.1983. Being emboldened with the said order, defendant no.1 forcibly removed eight quintals of paddy raised by the plaintiff over the suit land and thereby caused a loss of Rs.1,000.00. With this factual scenario, the suit was instituted seeking the relief mentioned supra.

3. Defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement pleading, inter alia, that Hrushikesh and the plaintiff were separated in mess and property. They were in possession of their respective shares of land separately. According to them, the suit land was sold by Natabar and his wife-Malabati to their father-Bidyadhar in or about the year 1937 and 1943. The plaintiff admitted the same in an agreement dated 6.6.1969. They claimed title to the suit land by way of adverse possession. Defendant no.4 was set ex parte.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck seven issues. The parties led evidence, oral and documentary to substantiate their case. The learned trial court dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that defendants 1 to 3 perfected title by way of adverse possession. The unsuccessful plaintiff filed T.A.No.24 of 1985 before the learned District Judge, Sundargarh. The learned appellate court came to a conclusion that defendants 1 to 3 had no right, title and interest over the suit land. Held so, it allowed the appeal.

5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos. B (I) to B (V) of the appeal memo. The same are :

“I. Whether the learned lower appellate Court acted contrary to law by ignoring the Ext.E which is a certified copy of a public document as illegal in view of Sections 76, 77, 78 and 79 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such the appellate Court’s judgment being based on such erroneous conclusion, is liable to be set aside.

II. Whether the learned lower appellate court acted illegally by discarding the certified copy of Amin report under Ext.F which is a public document by stating that the document has not been formally proved in view of Sections 74 and 77 and 79 of the Indian Evidence Act.

III. Whether the lower appellate court committed serious error apparent on the face of record by coming into conclusion that Ext.H does not relate to suit plot. When Ext.H is the yadast of the village in which the plaintiff has put his signature and which shows that suit plot does not belong to the plaintiff.

IV. Whether the lower appellate courts judgment ca