JUDGMENT

Dr. A.K. RATH, J. - This is a plaintiffs’ appeal against confirming judgment.

2. Ananda Barik, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants as plaintiff, instituted the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. Case of the plaintiff was that suit plot was originally recorded in the name of Bharat Samrat represented through P.W.D. Department in the R.O.R. published in the year 1927 with a note of possession of Dharma Lenka and others. In the year 1933, the other persons handed over the possession of Ac. 0.06 dec. out of total extent of area Ac. 0.13 dec. to Dharma Lenka for a consideration of Rs. 30/- Ac. 0.02 dec. belonged to Dharma. He occupied Ac. 0.04 dec. of land adjoining to his own share. After death of Dharma Lenka, his successors Dinabandhu Lenka and Chintamani Lenka executed a sale deed on 17.11.1965 in respect of a portion of suit plot and delivered possession to Madhabananda Pradhan. On 04.04.1970, Madhabananda Pradhan alienated the suit land in favour of the plaintiff for a valid consideration. The plaintiff had constructed a residential house over the said property. The possession of the plaintiff was with the full knowledge of the defendants. When the R.I. threatened the plaintiff to remove the construction, 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. It was pleaded that for widening the government road, the defendants took steps to remove the unauthorized occupation of the Government land. No notice under Sec. 80 CPC was issued to the defendants. The suit was not maintainable as the consolidation operation in the area was going on.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court struck eight issues. Parties led evidence, both oral and documentary, to substantiate the case. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the plaintiffs failed to prove the continuous and uninterrupted possession over the suit property; to the hostile animus of the defendants for more than thirty years. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed first appeal before the learned District Judge, Puri, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned 3rd Addl. District Judge, Puri and re-numbered as RFA No. 19/100 of 2014/2008. The appeal was eventually dismissed. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and his legal heirs have been substituted.

5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos. 1 and 2 of the memorandum of appeal. The same are-

“1. Whether in view of the evidence of P.Ws. coupled with the documentary evidence starting from 1927 and more particularly the decision in RFA No. 7/106 of 2005/2003, learned Courts below should have held that the plaintiffs have perfected their title over the suit land by virtue of adverse possession?

2. Whether in view of the finding in RFA No. 7/106 of 2005/2003 that the vendor’s vendor of the plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession over the suit plot which has become final, the learned Courts below acted illegally in discarding the said decision on the ground that the same is confined to that suit only and if such illegal approach has vitiated the entire judgment.”

6. Heard Mr. Budhiram Das on behalf of Mr. N.C. Pati, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel.

7. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the vendor’s vendor of the plaintiff, namely, Dinabandhu Lenka and Chintamani Lenka instituted T.S. No. 111 of 1998 before the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Puri for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction over the suit land. The suit having been dismissed, they filed RFA No. 7/106 of 2005/2003 before the learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, FTC No. II, Puri. Learned appell