Plaintiff's subsisting title must be established to claim possession. Adverse possession claim requires fulfillment of specific requirements.

JUDGMENT

D. Dash, J. - The Appellant, by filing this Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'the Code') has assailed the judgment dated 12.01.2005 followed by the decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nabarangpur in Title Appeal No.25 of 2000 in the First Appeal filed under section 96 of the Code. By the same, the First Appeal having been dismissed, the Court below has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2000 and 11.5.2000 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nabarangpur in Title Suit No.12 of 1996.

2. Be it stated here that the Appellant (Plaintiff) having died during pendency of this Appeal, his legal representatives have come to be substituted and are now pursuing the present Appeal against the Respondent (Defendant).

3. 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.

4. The Plaintiff has filed the Suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land with further prayer of recovery of possession.

It is his case that one Goria Kandha, a member of Scheduled Tribe community, was the erstwhile owner of suit land which stood recorded in his name in the record of right published in the year 1955 (Ext.2). It is stated that after the death of said Goria, his son, namely, Somanath Kandha succeeded to his property and sold the suit land to one Arjuna Bhotra, a member of Scheduled Tribe Community in the year 1983 by registered sale deed (Ext.3). Said Arjuna obtained permission as required under the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (hereinafter called as 'Regulation 2 of 1956'') under Ext.1 from the competent Authority (Ext.G) sold the said suit land to the Plaintiff by executing registered sale deed dated 26.08.1884.

According to the case of the Plaintiff, the Defendant has no manner of right, title and interest over the suit land and he being a purchaser of the land adjoining to the suit land which belonged to Rama Gouda, created disturbances in the possession of the suit land by the Plaintiff. The Defendant had purchased the said land adjoining the suit land by registered sale deed dated 10.02.1968 (Ext.A). The dispute with regard to possession over the land between the parties having taken place in the month of February, 1986. there arose a situation of breach of peace which ultimately led to initiation of a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Cr.P.C.'). The Executive Magistrate, in Misc. Case No.190 of 1986, made the inquiry as provided in Cr.P.C.

The Plaintiff as well as the Defendant advanced the claim as to their respective possession over the suit land. The Executive Magistrate, in concluding the said proceeding by order dated 20.07.1992, declared the possession of the Defendant over the suit land.

The Plaintiff, being aggrieved by the said order of declaration of the possession as passed by the Executive Magistrate in that proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. had carried a revision to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore. The Revisional Court, by order dated 25.08.19954, refused to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate. The Plaintiff then filed the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land in claiming his right to possess the suit land as such. Given further detail in the plaint, the Plaintiff has stated that the Defendant claimed that he has purchased the suit land with other lands from Rama Gouda and three others since 10.02.1968 as under Khata No.321, Plot No.112 measuring an area of Ac.2.88 cents as per the description and boundary given by him which is false and those aspects have not been properly delved into by the Executive Magistrate in deciding as to which of the party is in possession of the suit land ei