The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict requirements for establishing adverse possession, including the need for open, peaceful, continuous, and uninterrupted possession, along with hostile animus and denial of the true owner's title.

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 31.03.2015 and 15.04.2022 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in RFA No.59 of 2014.

By the same, the Appeal filed by these Appellant and her mother, being the unsuccessful Plaintiffs, under section 96 of the Code has been dismissed and thereby the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2014 and 28.08.2014 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Berhampur in Civil Suit No.459 of 2012 have been confirmed.

The Appellant and her mother being thus non-suited, in view of the death of the mother of Appellant (co-appellant), this Appeal has been filed by the surviving unsuccessful Plaintiff as the sole Appellant.

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 during the life time of Duryodha Sahu, the father of Plaintiff No.1 and husband of Plaintiff No.2, the suit land was in his occupation and enjoyment. Such was the position from the year 1996 since when Duryodhan was possessing the suit land by putting green fence all around. The possession is stated to be open, peaceful, continuous and without interruption from any quarter. It is also said to be with the full knowledge of all concerned including the Revenue Authority. It is the further case of the Plaintiffs that after the death of Duryodhan, they remained in possession of the suit land, which has been noted in the record of settlement operation in the year 1970. The land being recorded under Anabadi status; its occupation is said to be resting with Duryodhan.

When the situation was thus, the Revenue Authority initiated a proceeding under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the OPLE Act’) vide Land Encroachment Case No.130 of 2010. The Plaintiff paid a fine of Rs.101/- in terms of the order passed therein on 29.03.2010, but then the suit land having not been recorded in the name of the Plaintiffs, the present suit came to be filed.

4. The Defendants, though entered appearance in the Suit, did not file any written statement.

5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as five issues and upon examination of evidence and their evaluation, has found the Plaintiffs to have failed to prove their case either to be having the right, title and interest or to have acquired the right of absolute ownership over the suit property. It is also stated that by virtue of the possession of the suit property, as claimed by the Plaintiffs, no case of acquisition of title over the same by way of adverse possession has been made out. With the said finding, the suit having been dismissed, the Plaintiffs have failed in their attempt to get it annulled in the Appeal filed by them. The First Appellate Court has affirmed the finding of the Trial Court and consequently, the end result recorded in the suit has received the seal of approval.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Courts below are not at all right and justified in arriving at a finding that the Plaintiffs have not perfected title over the suit land by way of adverse possession when admittedly the long possession of the suit land fulfilling all the ingredients as required is available to be so recorded on the basis of the oral evidence corroborated by the documentary evidence exhibited from the side of the Plaintiffs. He submitted that by virtue of such possession of the suit land by the Plaintiffs since the time of Duryodhan; the Defendants-State having not taken any step to physically oust Duryodhan or the Plaintiffs from the suit land, the suit ought to have been decreed. He, therefore, contended for admission of this Appeal to answer the above as the substantial questions of law.

7. Learned counse