The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adverse possession to be peaceful, open, and continuous with hostile animus to the true owner. The judgment also emphasized the inconsistency between claiming title based on a prior agreement and asserting adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

1. This appeal at the plaintiff's instance assails the affirming first appellate judgment of the learned District Judge, Phulbani in a suit for declaration of title over schedule-A land and permanent injunction.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that schedule-A land is a part and parcel of schedule-B land. Originally the land was un-surveyed and not assigned any khata and plot numbers. Dinabandhu Kanhar, Gatak Kanhar and Dasa Dehury were the owners of schedule-B land. They alienated the land to Balabhadra Kanhar and Gajapati Kanhar by means of a registered sale-deed in the year 1926 after obtaining prior permission from the then S.D.O. Kandhamal. Thereafter Balabhadra Kanhar and Gajapati Kanhar alienated a portion of schedule-B land to Sunapani Mohanty, plaintiff's grandfather, by means of an unregistered sale-deed dated 11.5.1948. After sale, Sunapani Mohanty constructed a thatched house over a portion of the land and stayed therein with his family members. After his death, his son Naba Bhusan Mohanty, father of the plaintiff, was in possession of the land. Subsequently his father donated the suit land in his favour. While matter stood thus, the settlement operation in the area, wherein the land falls, started. Sunapani Mohanty was bedridden. He could not take steps before the settlement authority, as a result of which, schedule-A land had been wrongly recorded as Rakhit land in Government khata no. 126, plot no. 41/1094 of mouza-Dadapaju. Out of the same, Ac. 0.200 dec. of land had been allotted to D.R.D.A. Kandhamal by the Collector in the year 1994-95. The R.O.R. was accordingly issued in the name of D.R.D.A. Phulbani. Notwithstanding the same, the plaintiff is in possession of schedule-A land. He has acquired possessory title. In 2001 the R.I. obstructed for construction of pucca house. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement pleading, inter-alia, that schedule-A land is not a portion of schedule-B land. It has no link with schedule-B land. The land has been rightly recorded in Rakhit khata. The description of the suit land in the plaint is incorrect. Neither the predecessor of the plaintiff, nor the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff has no semblance of right, title and interest over the suit land. Defendants 3 to 9 were set ex-parte.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck five issues. Plaintiff led evidence, oral and documentary. No evidence was adduced by the defendants. Learned trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he is in possession of the suit land for more than thirty years and perfected title way of adverse possession. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed first appeal before the learned District Judge, Phulbani. On an anatomy of the pleadings and evidence, learned appellate court held that the plaintiff pleaded that the original owners of the suit land were Dinabandhu Kanhar, Gatak Kanhar and Dasa Dehury. The plaintiff has claimed title by way of adverse possession. But then, there is no averment as to against whom the plaintiff has claimed acquisition of possessory title and from which date possession of the plaintiff has become adverse against the State. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit land for more than thirty years. There are other legal heirs of Sunapani Mohanty. The alleged gift is not supported by any gift deed. It is not clear if the plaintiff claims acquisition of possessory title against the successors of Sunapani Mohanty. In absence of other legal heirs, the suit is not maintainable. The unregistered sale-deed had not seen the light of the day till it was presented before the court. The documents sought to be produced through PW-4. He was not a signatory to the unregistered deed, but he claimed that he was present when deed was executed. He was seventy