Adverse possession is a blended question of fact and law, and the claimant must prove peaceful, open, and continuous possession with hostile intent against the true owner.

JUDGMENT

A. K. Rath, J. - This is a defendants' appeal against confirming judgment.

2. Plaintiffs-respondents instituted suit for declaration of title by way of adverse possession and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the sons of Keshaba Rana. The defendants are the legal heirs of Harihara Kuanr. In the 4th Settlement, R.O.R. Khata No.7 of Mouza-Malpada was recorded in the name of Harihara Kuanr. Their father was in possession of the land since 1953. He exercised all acts of ownership till his death. After his death, they are in possession of the same. The certified copy of the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Balangir in O.L.R. Lease Case No.23 of 1977 shows that their father was in possession since 1953. While matter stood thus, father of the defendants initiated Revenue Misc. Case No.2 of 1977 under section 23A of Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 ('OLR Act' in short) before the S.D.O., Sonepur. The S.D.O., Sonepur declared the possession of their father unauthorised and directed restoration of possession in favour of Harihara Kuanr. Plaintiffs along with their mother preferred O.L.R. Appeal No.23 of 1980 before the A.D.M., Balangir. By order dated 27.5.1980, the A.D.M. allowed the appeal with a finding that the appellants have perfected title by way of adverse possession. Harihara Kuanr preferred O.L.R. Revision No.60 of 1980 before the Special Officer, Land Reforms, Sambalpur. He withdrew the same on 21.3.1983. The order passed by the A.D.M., Balangir in OLR Appeal No.23 of 1980 has attained finality. Again in the year 1981, father of the defendants initiated a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C., 1973 against their mother. Their possession was declared in the said proceeding. Thereafter they along with their mother filed Mutation Case No.85 of 1991 before the Tahasildar, Sonepur, which was allowed. The Tahasildar directed preparation of ROR in their name and mother. Defendant nos.1 and 2 filed Mutation Appeal No.21 of 1991 before the Sub-Collector, Sonepur. The same was allowed. Thereafter, they filed Mutation Revision No.47 of 1995 before the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa, Cuttack. In the revision, a compromise was entered into between the parties and accordingly a compromise petition was filed on 3.7.1996. The defendant nos.1 and 2 admitted the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land and prayed to prepare ROR in their name and mother. Since settlement operation was going on, ROR could not be prepared. They filed Rent Case No.72 of 1998 before the Settlement Authority. Defendant nos.1 and 2 gave their consent to prepare ROR in their name and mother. But then, defendants preferred appeal No.46 of 1998 before the Settlement Officer, Sambalpur. The appeal was allowed. The appellate authority directed for preparation of ROR in the name of the defendants. With the factual scenario, they instituted suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

3. Though the defendants filed written statement, but subsequently they were set ex parte. To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs had examined two witnesses and on their behalf, nine documents had been exhibited. Learned trial court decreed the suit holding that plaintiffs had perfected title by way of adverse possession. Unsuccessful defendants filed Title Appeal No.27 of 2001 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Sonepur, which was eventually dismissed.

4. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

"(1) Whether the learned First Appellate Court has failed to consider the aspect that there was sufficient ground for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree?

(2) Whether the plea of adverse possession by a non-tribal person is legally maintainable against a tribal person?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs can institute the suit for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession?"

5. Mrs.Padmaja Pattnaik, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land belongs to plaintiffs