The judgment establishes the principles of adverse possession, emphasizing the hostile and exclusive nature of possession, the burden of proof, and the distinction between possession and permissive use.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in OJC No. 3788 of 1994, by which the judgments of the Authorities under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, (hereinafter called 'the Act') have been affirmed.

2. Appellant claims that in the year 1955, when he was in service paid the money to his two brothers i.e. Pravakar and Bhaskara to purchase the suit property from Brajananda Biswal and Jadumani Biswal. The property was purchased vide Regd. Sale deed dated 18.1.1955 in the names of the said two brothers though he had paid the entire sale consideration. After retirement in 1960,Appellant came to his village and ousted his two brothers from possession and continued to have exclusive possession of the land and thus acquired the title by adverse possession also.

3. In Consolidation proceedings in 1982, the land was shown in private Respondents' names. Appellant filed objection u/s 9(3) of the Act on the ground that initially private Respondents were merely benami owners and subsequently Appellant also acquired the title by adverse possession. The objections were rejected vide judgment and order dated 30.6.1982. Against the said judgment Appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Director Consolidation vide judgment and order dated 30.3.1982. Against the said judgment the Revisional Authority i.e. Consolidation Commissioner vide judgment and order dated 31.3.1994 rejected the revision on the ground of limitation as petition was barred by 812 days. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition affirming the said judgments and orders.

4. The learned Single Judge rejected the theory set up by the Appellant that he had exclusively contributed the consideration towards the sale price of the said property and the opposite parties were merely benami owners of it or that the property was purchased from the funds of the joint family nucleus taking into consideration the provisions of law.

5. On the issue of adverse possession, the learned Single Judge has discussed the facts in detail and recorded the following finding:

Adverse possession is essentially a hostile possession, possession in denial of the title of the true owner. There is a basic distinction between an adverse possession as between strangers and ouster and exclusion of co-owners. In the case of adverse possession as against strangers, it is sufficient that such possession is overt and without any attempt of concealment, so that person against whom time is running with the exercise of due vigilance could be aware of what is happening. On the other hand, the possession of one co-owner is presumed to be on behalf of all co-owners in view of the unity of title and possession. Because of this presumption of joint ownerships in the case of co-owners, the law requires to constitute ouster, i.e., proof of something more than mere exclusive possession. Along with exclusive possession, there must be a hostile, open denial and open refutation of other co-owners' right to the latter's knowledge. The co-owner in exclusive possession cannot render his possession adverse to the other co-owner merely by any secret or hostile animus on his own part in derogation of other co-owners' title.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant tried to challenge the said finding. However, we do not see any reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugning judgment as the finding so recorded by the learned Single Judge is in consonance with law.

7. Adverse possession means a hostile possession, I.e. possession in denial of the title of the true owner. To claim Successfully the adverse possession, vesting of title in the possessor should be there. More so, the possession must be actual, physical, exclusive, hostile and continued during the statutory period of limitation. Adverse possession is the possession over the land on his own behalf by a person other than the