The central legal point established in the judgment is the acceptance of the Survey Knowing Commissioner's report and the rejection of the Defendants' claim of adverse possession, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal.

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J.

The Appellants, by filing this Appeal under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Code’), have challenged the judgment and decree dated 18.04.1992 and 21.04.1992 respectively passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Cuttack in Title Appeal No.27 of 1983.

By the same, the judgment and decree dated 26.02.1983 and 11.03.1983 respectively passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in Title Suit No.341 of 1979.

The Respondents, as the Plaintiffs, having filed the suit, had lost in the Trial Court. The suit has been decreed by the First Appellate Court and the Appeal filed by the unsuccessful Plaintiffs under Section 96 of the Code has been allowed. The Present Appellants (Defendants) having thus suffered from the judgment and decreed passed by the First Appellate Court, have come up in this Second Appeal.

It may be stated at this stage that Appellant No.2 (Defendant No.2) having died during pendency of this Appeal, his legal representatives have come on record.

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 Suit.

3. The Plaintiffs case is that one Dasa Sahoo was the original owner of the suit property as per the description given in Schedule-C of the plot measuring an area of Ac.0.05 decimals. After several transfers made by the original owner Dasa, the suit property came to the hands of Defendant No.4, namely, Saradamani Sahoo. The Defendants 1 to 3 are the sons and daughters of one Baruribandhu Sahoo. It is stated that the Plaintiffs have purchased the suit property from Defendant no.4 by registered sale deed dated 19.12.1977 (Ext.3-C). Having purchased the land, the same has been recorded in their name as per the record of right (Ext.2). The Defendant No.1 has got his homestead adjoining to the eastern side of the suit plot, i.e., 2942. Besides the land under plot no.2942, the Plaintiffs are also the owners of the land under plot nos.2940 and 2941. The land of Defendant No.1 which is adjacent to suit plot no.2942 is under plot no.2943. It is stated that as the house of the Plaintiffs standing over the land under plot nos.2940, 2941 and 2942 got damaged beyond repair, they demolished the same for construction of a new house over there. Sometime in the month of June, 1979, when the Plaintiffs measured the land, they found that Defendants 1 to 3 have encroached the portion of the land under that suit plot no.2942 to the extent of 130 links north-south and 14 links east-west. It is also stated that although they had agreed to vacate the said encroachment, they did not do so. So, the Plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of their right, title and interest in respect of the suit property and recovery of possession with permanent injunction.

4. The Defendants 1 to 3, in their written statement, have flatly denied to have encroached any portion of the land under suit plot no.2942. It is said that the property described in Schedule-C of the plaint is a part of their plot no.2943. Having said this, they have also pleaded in the alternative to have perfected title over the suit plot by way of adverse possession. A plea has also been taken that the purchase made by the plaintiff under that registered sale deed is illegal on account of fraud in the registration of the document.

5. With such rival pleadings, the Trial Court, in total, has framed eight issues. On examination of the evidence and their evaluation, the Trial Court, on the crucial issue as to encroachment of the suit land by the Defendants, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, found that the same has not been proved. Thus holding that the Defendants have not encroached upon the suit land belonging to the Plaintiffs, the other issues being so answered against the Plaintiffs, their suit stood dismissed.

The Plaintiffs then preferred the Appeal. The First Appellate Court, by its judgment dated 20.03.1985, allowed the said Ap