The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of adverse possession, emphasizing the need for open, peaceful, continuous possession with hostile animus and denial of the true owner's title. The court held that the contesting Defendants failed to establish adverse possession, confirming the Plaintiffs' right, title, and interest over the suit land.

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2005 & 23.07.2005 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjhar, in R.F.A. No.61 of 2004.

By the same, the Appeal filed by the Respondent Nos.1 & 2, being the unsuccessful Plaintiffs under section 96 of the Code has been allowed and thereby the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2004 & 14.10.2004 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Keonjhar in Title Suit No.54 of 2001 dismissing the suit filed by these Respondents Nos.1 and 2 (Plaintiffs) have been set aside and finally, the right, title, interest and these Respondents (Plaintiffs) over the suit land and their right to recover the possession of the same have been granted.

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 the suit land originally stood recorded in the name of Dulal Mahanta, who is their ancestor and died prior to the 1927. He had two sons, namely, Padan and Makuru. Makuru predeceased his father Dulal leaving behind his only son Choudhury, who died thirty years before the institution of the suit survived by three sons, who are Defendant Nos.6 to 8. Padan said to have died fifty years before the Suit leaving behind three sons, namely, Jayram, Dhanu & one Niranjan, who has been arraigned as Defendant No.3. Parbati (Defendant No.4) is the only daughter of Jayram. Dhanu died twenty years prior to the suit leaving behind his widow (Plaintiff No.2), son (Defendant No.5) and Daughter (Plaintiff No.1).

The suit land measuring Ac.0.48 decimals corresponding to sabik plot no.743 has been recorded in the name of Sira Bindhani in the Hal Settlement Record. The Defendant No.2 is the son of Sira and Defendant No.1 is the purchaser of the suit land from Defendant No.2. It is further stated that after the death of Dulal, the land under sabik khata no.17 was mutated in the name of Padan and Choudhury, who possessed the same separately as per their convenience without there being any partition in metes and bounds. During Hal Settlement, they divided the lands in suit khata in that partition, the suit land fell to the share of Dhanu which was under his possession as before.

Raibu Bindhani and Sira were blacksmiths. They shifted to the suit village and requested Dhanu to provide them shelter in the village so as to earn their living by working as blacksmith in the said village. Dhanu permitted Raibu and Sira to occupy a portion of the suit land by erecting a house over it for putting up their heads. It is next stated that during Hal Settlement Operation, said Sira gaining over the Settlement Authorities, somehow managed to get his name recorded in respect of the entire suit land. Such recording is said to be wholly erroneous and without any basis. It is stated that neither Sira nor his son Madhab had any title over the suit land nor this recording has not created title in their favour in so far as the suit land is concerned. Bindhani family left the suit village about ten years before the suit and thereafter the Plaintiffs’ father demolished the house standing over the suit land and possessed the same. When the matter stood thus, sometime in the year 2001, the Defendant No.1 created disturbances in the possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit land asserting that she has purchased the same from the Defendant No.2. it is stated that Defendant No.2 had absolutely no right to transfer any interest in respect of the suit land and as such the sale deed executed by him in favour of the Defendant No.2 is stated to be illegal and void and not binding on the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs, having found their right and title for the aforesaid actions being cast with cloud, filed the suit seeking the reliefs, as aforesai