JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against reversing judgment. The suit was for declaration of right, title and interest and permanent injunction.

2. Case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land originally belonged to one Gangaram Gountia. He was a Thikadar of Village-Mongrapali. On 24.4.1938, he alienated the suit land in favour of Gangaram Teli. Gangaram Teli became a tenant under the Thikadar. Gangaram Teli sold the land to Nanjee Bhai Rath-plaintiff no. 2 by means of an unregistered sale deed dated 19.11.1938 for a consideration of Rs. 160/-. Thereafter, plaintiff no. 2 sold the suit land to plaintiff no. 1 by means of an unregistered sale deed dated 7.3.1942 for a consideration of Rs. 200/-. Plaintiff no. 1 constructed a katcha house over a portion of the suit land. While the matter stood thus, Encroachment Case No. 172 of 1976 was initiated against him. Order of eviction was passed. Against the said order, Appeal Case No. 3 of 1977 was filed before the S.D.O. Nuapara, which is sub-judice. The suit land had been wrongly recorded in the name of the Government. On the basis of erroneous entry in the ROR, defendant nos. 3 to 5 threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess from the suit land. With this factual scenario, the suit was filed.

3. Defendant no. 1 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was pleaded that the suit property was recorded in the name of the State in the ROR published in the year 1965-66 as “Sarba Sadharana.” The Thikadar had no authority to alienate the suit land. The sale deed was void. No title had been passed to the plaintiff no. 1. Plaintiff no. 1 was the encroacher of the public property. Initiation of Encroachment Case No. 172 of 1976 was perfectly legal and justified. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff no. 1 died, whereafter his legal representatives have been substituted.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck ten issues. Parties led evidence. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff no. 1 has perfected title by way of adverse possession. The sale deed vide Ext.2 is invalid for want of registration. No title has been passed on the basis of Ext.2 to plaintiff no. 2 and consequently to plaintiff no. 1. It decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendants filed Title Appeal No. 25/13 of 1986-89 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Nuapara. Learned appellate court came to hold that the plaintiff no. 1 has not perfected title by way of adverse of possession. Held so, it allowed the appeal.

5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law enumerated in Ground No. 1.

“Whether the finding on Issue No. 5 (para 10) by the Appellate Court is justified in law in view of his conclusions that the plaintiff no. 1 is in possession of the suit land for more than 30 years.”

6. Heard Mr. Rama Chandra Rath, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Samapika Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the respondents.

7. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the appellants argues with vehemence that the suit land originally belonged to Gangaram Gountia. He was the Thikadar of Village-Mongrapali. He executed a Chirasthai Patta in favour of Gangaram Teli and received rent. Gangaram Teli was a tenant under the Thikadar. To press his legal necessity, Gangaram Teli sold the suit land to Nanjee Bhai Rathplaintiff no. 2 by means of an unregistered sale deed dated 19.11.1938. Thereafter, plaintiff no. 2 sold the suit land to plaintiff no. 1 by means of an unregistered sale deed dated 7.3.1942. Plaintiff no. 1 constructed a residential house over a portion of the suit land. He was in possession of the suit land peacefully, continuously and with hostile animus to the defendants for more than the statutory period and as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. Initiation of encroachment case against plaintiffs is bad in law. Alternative submission of Mr. Rath is that in Khar