The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adverse possession, including the need for peaceful, open, and continuous possession, as well as the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Routray, J. - The present appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 24th March, 2000 of the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No.289 of 1979 whereby the judgment and decree dated 10th September, 1979 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Keonjhar in T.S. No.19 of 1977 was set aside.

2. The present Appellants were the Defendants in the learned trial court and the Respondents were the Plaintiffs. For convenience, the parties are referred with their status as they were before the learned trial court.

3. The Plaintiffs filed Title Suit (TS) praying for declaration of their title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. The claim of the Plaintiffs is based on their adverse possession over Schedule-A properties.

4. The parties in dispute are the descendants of the common ancestor, namely, Sadhu Barik. He had three sons, namely, Sibanath, Jayi and Ninuha. The Defendants belong to the branch of Sibanath, Plaintiffs Nos.1 to 6 belong to the branch of Jayi and Plaintiff No.7 is the daughter of Ninuha.

5. Learned trial court framed five issues which are as follows: ' 1. If the suit was maintainable ? 2. If the Plaintiffs have cause of action to file the suit? 3. If the Plaintiffs have acquired title over the suit lands by adverse possession ? 4. If the suit is barred by the principles of res- judicata ? 5. To what relief, if any, the Plaintiffs are entitled ?'

6. By judgment dated 10th September, 1979, learned trial court dismissed the suit. For Issue No.5, regarding res judicata the learned trial court negated the plea of the Defendants. On Issue No.3, learned trial court held that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove acquisition of title by way of adverse possession. At para 25 of the judgment, it was held as follows:

'On an analysis of the facts and circumstances dealt above it is found that the Plaintiff have failed to prove their possession over the suit lands for more than twelve years prior to the institution of the suit continuously, peaceably without interruption and showing hostile animus to the Defendants. Accordingly, I hold that the Plaintiffs have not acquired title over the suit land by way of adverse possession and answer this issue in the negative against the Plaintiffs and in favour of the Defendants.'

7. The Plaintiffs came in First Appeal No.289 of 1979 and the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 24th March, 2000 reversed the finding of the learned trial court to decree the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs. It has been observed by the learned Single Judge at paragraph 5 that, 'The trial court discarded the case of the Plaintiffs mainly on the ground that the evidence of the Plaintiffs had not received any independent corroboration and there was discrepancy in the evidence relating to the date from which the Plaintiffs remained in possession.'

It is further observed at paragraph 6 that, 'There is clear evidence on record to indicate that the Plaintiffs have remained in possession at least from the year 1963-64, if not earlier. Of course, the Plaintiffs and the other two witnesses examined in support of their possession clearly state that the Plaintiffs continued to remain in possession even from 1953. However, the documentary evidence on record adduced on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the shape of various settlement papers clearly point out that the Plaintiffs were in possession at least from the year 1963-64.'

Accordingly learned Single Judge came to the finding as follows:

'P.Ws.3 and 4 have categorically corroborated the statement of Plaintiffs relating to their possession. The documentary evidence in the shape of various settlement papers has also corroborated the case of the Plaintiffs. Since the present Plaintiffs were claiming possession on their own right at least from the year 1963-64, such possession became adverse to the interest of the present Defendants. There is no evidence on record to indicate that the possession of the Plaintiffs had been effectively interrupted