The main legal point established in the judgment is that mere possession of property does not establish a claim of title by adverse possession. The possessor must demonstrate open, peaceful, continuous, and uninterrupted possession exhibiting hostile animus in denial of the true owner's title.

JUDGMENT :

The Appellants, by filing this Appeal under Section- 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’), have assailed the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2002 and 05.02.2002 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhanjanagar in Title Appeal No.11 of 2000.

By the same, the judgment and decree dated 12.11.1990 and 29.11.1990 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, Bhanjanagar, in Title Suit No.31 of 1970 decreeing the suit filed by one Bishnupriya Rath, the original Plaintiff whose legal representatives are in her place since pendency of the First Appeal and have been arraigned in the present Appeal as the Respondents (Plaintiffs), have been confirmed. The suit has thus been decreed directing the Appellants (Defendants) to deliver the vacant possession of the suit land to the Plaintiff.

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 original Plaintiff purchased Ac.4.51 cents of padar land in appertaining to Khata No.129, Plot No.363-1/D.6 in Mouza-Lalsing as described in the plaint from Udayanath Rout by registered sale deed dated 22.07.1955 for a valuable consideration of Rs.1350/-. After her purchase, she had obtained patta in her name. It is stated that by such purchase, she became the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is alleged that on 07.12.1957, the Bhanjanagar College Authorities (Defendants) encroached upon the said plot unlawfully and prevented the Plaintiff from possessing the same. As her request went unheeded to, she issued notice to the Defendants to vacate the suit land. When the move in that direction did not yield any result, she filed the suit.

4. The Defendants in their written statement have stated that the land in the suit had been occupied by the founders of Bhanjanagar College before 07.12.1957. They had delivered possession of the same to the College Committee when College started to function. The College Committee having taken the possession of the suit land, have been possessing the same since then. It is stated that whatever right, title and interest that the Plaintiff had over the suit land, the same stood extinguished by virtue of long possession of the said land by the Defendants which was all along open, peaceful continuous exhibiting hostile animus to the knowledge of the original Plaintiff for much more than the period prescribed which has been completed long prior to the institution of the suit on 06.12.1969

5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court having framed four issues, after examination of the evidence and their detail analysis, has decided the crucial issue no.3 as regards the right, title and interest of the Plaintiff over the suit property in ruling upon the sustainability of her claim of recovery of possession of the suit land in her favour.

The Defendants-College, being aggrieved by the said finding followed by the decree in favour of the Plaintiff, having carried the Appeal, have failed. Hence, this Second Appeal.

During pendency of this Appeal, the Plaintiffs have filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for amendment of the plaint so as to insert the description of the suit land in consonance with the records of the hal settlement, which has been numbered as I.A. No.249 of 2019.. The Defendants have also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with section 151 of the Code seeking leave to adduce additional evidence which are the record of right, rent receipts and the draft kahtian prepared during hal settlement in respect of the suit land and that has been numbered as I.A. No.99 of 2021.

The learned counsels for the parties having been heard on such move; the IAs would be disposed of in course of the discussion to follow.

6. The present Appeal has been admitted on 27.06.2002 to answer the substantial questions of law, as indicated in Ground No. B, C and D of the M