The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of satisfactory evidence to support adverse possession claims and the necessity of locus standi to challenge a registered sale deed.

JUDGMENT

D.Dash, J. - The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the Code) seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2004 and 11.01.2005 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kendrapara in RFA No.27 of 2000.

By the same, the judgment and decree dated 31.7.200 and 5.8.2000 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara in T.S. No. 10 of 1977 have been confirmed.

Nirakar Das, Bramhananda Das and Kalpataru Das have filed the suit as the Plaintiffs. The suit is for partition, demarcation of their share and delivery separate possession of portion of the property which is the suit property to them. Gourhari Das and Bansidhar Das are the defendants. The suit having been disposed of; the Defendants being aggrieved thereby had carried an Appeal under section 96 of the Code. The Appeal has also been dismissed. Therefore, those unsuccessful Defendants before the courts below, as the Appellants have filed this Second Appeal. During pendency of the Appeal, the Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 being dead, their legal representatives have come to be substituted and are now pursuing the Appeal. It may be stated here that Plaintiff Nirakar and Bramhananda having died during pendency of the First Appeal, their legal representatives have been brought on record. Among the parties Kalpataru, the Plaintiff No. 3 is living and thus in this Appeal stands arraigned as the Respondent No.11.

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 Trial Court.

3. The Plaintiffs case is that one Kelei @ Kinu Das, husband of Kanchan Dibya, the Defendant No. 3 was the original recorded tenant in respect of Ac.0.10 decimals of land under plot No. 2194 appertaining to khata No. 437 in Mouza-Manikapatna. He transferred an area Ac.0.04 dec. from the northern portion of the above plot in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and rest Ac.0.06 dec. to the southern side with the house standing thereon remained his possession. It is stated that after the death of Kinu, his wife Kanchan having succeded to his property became the absolute owner and remained in possession of that Ac.0.06 dec. of land with the house standing thereon. On 8.12.76 Kanchan Dibya, Defendant No. 3 sold the land with the house to the Plaintiffs for consideration of Rs.1000/- by executing the sale deed which was duly registered and gave delivery of possession of the same to them. Plaintiffs thus continued to possess the said land, when Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 remained in possession of Ac.0.004 dec. out of the said plot. It is stated that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 created disturbance in the enjoyment and possession of the purchase property by the Plaintiffs. So request was made for partition by way of demarcation to put an end to the dispute permanently. That being declined, the suit was filed.

4. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in their written statement while traversing the plaint averments have stated that Kanchan Dibya wife of Kinu, the original owner of the land had deserted Kinu shortly after i.e. about six months of marriage as Kinu was suffering from leprosy. It is stated that Kanchan was separately leading life on her own being aloof from all such affairs of Kinu. They state that Kinu transferred Ac.0.04 dec. of land to them and subsequently had entered into an agreement for sale of the remaining Ac.0.06 dec. with the house standing thereon for consideration of Rs.500/-. He in two parts and stages had thus delivered possession of the entire suit plot measuring Ac.0.10 dec. to them. They claim to be in possession of that land measuring Ac.0.06 dec. openly, peacefully and without interpretation to the knowledge of the true owner since the date of delivery of possession pursuant to the agreement for sale executed by Kinu. They state that Record of Rights prepared in current settlement stands in t