The central legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession requires the possessor to deny the title of the true owner, and without such denial, adverse possession cannot be established.

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J.

The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Puri, in Title Appeal No.30 of 1997.

By the same, the Appeal filed by these Appellants, being the unsuccessful Plaintiffs, under section 96 of the Code has been dismissed and thereby the judgment and decree dated 13.01.1997 and 27.01.1997 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Puri in Title Suit No.101 of 1991, have been confirmed. These Appellants have thus been non-suited.

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 on 05.04.1939, they came to possess the suit land taking the same on lease from Maulabi Mirja-Tar Begum, who had executed a unregistered patta in their favour. It is stated that since then, they possessed the suit land, planted varieties of trees over there and went on paying the rent. It is their case that during Settlement Operation, not final Parcha and Yadast although were issued in their favour, in the final Record of Right, the land stood recorded in the name of Defendant No.1, i.e., the State. This final Record of Right was published in the year 1966. After that, the Defendant No.2, Tahasildar, Puri Sadar initiated Encroachment Case against the son of Plaintiff No.1 in respect of Ac.0.30 decimals out of the suit land under the provision of Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972. The Plaintiffs claim that they have been in possession of the suit land as settled rayats of the village under the Ex-intermediary and accordingly, they have acquired right of occupancy over the suit land. Since by taking advantage of the wrong recording of the suit land in favour of the State, the Defendants proposed to lease out the suit land in favour of some other, the suit has come to be filed when threat of eviction also came through the initiation of the encroachment proceeding.

The Plaintiffs, in the suit, have advanced the following principal prayers:-

“(a) pass a decree declaring the occupancy raiyat over the suit land and acquired valid right over the same;

(b) pass a decree, restraining the Defendants not to evict the plaintiffs from the suit land.”

4. The Defendants, in their written statement, while traversing the plaint averments, have clearly stated that the Ex-intermediary have never leased out the suit land to the Plaintiffs on fixation of rent and had never delivered possession of the suit land to the Plaintiffs. The document projected for the purpose are said to have been antedated, created later and as such forged. It is pleaded that the suit property belong to the State and the Plaintiffs have not acquired any right of occupancy over the same. It is further stated that as per the Record of Right, the suit plot no.222 appertaining khata no.141 extending an area of Ac.5.96 decimals stood recorded as ‘Chhota Jungle’ in the name of the State. From out of that, an area of Ac.2.00 decimals has been settled by the State in favour of one Rabindra Khatai in Revenue Misc. Case No.344 of 1983. But that lease was subsequently cancelled by order in Misc. Case No.344 of 1983. In Encroachment Case bearing no.178 of 1986 land of an area of Ac.1.22 decimals out of the suit land was settled in favour of one Maheswar Sutar and vide Lease Case No.190 of 1993, further land of Ac.0.40 decimals out of the suit land has been settled in favour of that Maheswar Sutar under fraction plot bearing no.222/1136 under hal khata no.136/192. It is asserted that all these settlements are illegal and without jurisdiction and the State is in possession of the entire land.

5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court has framed as many as five issues. Answering the crucial issue, i.e., issue no.3 with regard to the claim of Plaintiffs that th