The party claiming adverse possession must plead and prove open, peaceful, continuous possession without interruption, and denial of the true owner's rights for the prescribed period.

JUDGMENT

D.Dash, J. - The Appellants, by filing this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') have assailed the judgment and decree dated 27.09.1988 and 06.10.1988 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jeypore in Title Appeal No.5/88 (19/87 of D.J).

By the same, the First Appellate Court, having allowed the First Appeal, has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Munsif, Umerkote in Title Suit No.4 of 1986.

The Trial Court having dismissed the suit, the unsuccessful Plaintiff had carried the Appeal under Section 96 of the Code. That having been allowed, now the unsuccessful Defendants are before this Court in the present Appeal in assailing the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in favour of the Respondents (Plaintiffs) by declaring their right, title and interest over the suit properties and directing the Appellants (Defendants) for delivery of possession of the same.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.

3. The Plaintiff's case is that the Defendants is the son of Kecha Kolar, who is the son of Nadi Kolar @ Gountia. Nadi Gountia and Surupsing Gountia were two brothers. Both of them are dead. Defendant No.3 is the son of Surupsingh whereas Defendant No.2 is the son of Nadi. The subject matter of the suit is a tank which in course of time, has undergone change to a major extent being filled up where cultivation activity is going on and on a small part, water still stands being accumulated and thus is used as tank.

It is stated by the Plaintiff that said tank had been excavated by their ancestors Dhono Majhi and they were enjoying the same all along. It is thus stated that the said tank is in their peaceful possession since the time of their ancestors. The tank in question, however, was recorded in the name of Surupsing and Nadi in the record of right which the Plaintiffs could not know as they are illiterate. Inspite of such recording, there was, however, never any demand from the side of those recorded tenants to take possession of the suit tank nor they had made any such attempt in that regard. Only sometime in the year 1974, when the subject matter of the suit was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs, when they could come to know that the suit land has been recorded in the name of Surupsingh and others, they filed one Mutation Case. The Defendants thereafter in the year 1979 having no right, title, interest and possession over the suit tank forcibly came to catch the fishes and hence dispute arose between the parties. The matter being reported at the local police station, one proceeding under section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Cr.P.C.') was started and the subject matter of the suit was kept under attachment under section 146 of the Cr.P.C. The enquiry commenced before the Executive Magistrate, in Misc. Case No.39 of 1979 and finally, order has been passed that the Defendant No.1 Hari Kolar is in possession of the subject matter of the suit as on the date of passing of the preliminary order and accordingly, he was delivered with the possession. This gave rise to the cause of action for the Plaintiffs to file the suit seeking declaration of their right, title and interest and recovery of possession.

4. The Defendants, while traversing the plaint averments in denying the factual aspects as set out in the plaint, have projected their case that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property in question since the time of their forefathers. The possession is said to be all along peaceful and without any interruption. It is thus stated that the property in question, therefore, had been rightly recorded in the name of Defendant No.1 and he has been paying the land revenue to the State. They state that the Plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over