IMPORTANT POINT
A claim for title by adverse possession must be clearly pleaded with specific dates and evidence of denial of the true owner's title; mere long possession is insufficient.

JUDGMENT

A.C. Behera, J.

This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The respondent of this 2nd appeal was the sole plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.03 of 1988 and he was the appellant before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.29 of 1990.

3. The appellants of this 2nd appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.03 of 1988 and they were the respondents in the 1st appeal before the 1st appellate court in T.A. No.29 of 1990.

4. The suit of the plaintiff (who is the respondent in this 2nd appeal) before the trial court vide T.S. No.03 of 1988 against the defendants (appellants in this 2nd appeal) was a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

5. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.03 of 1988 against the State and Tahasildar (defendants) was that, in the year 1949, a company known as Development Co-operative Ltd. undertook constructions for a model colony at Gapabandhu Nagar, Berhampur in order to provide dwelling houses with other amenities such as roads, parks etc. to the inhabitants of the same. That development company obtained approval from Berhampur Municipality for laying out plan. The mother of the plaintiff purchased a piece of land appertaining to plot no.13 of the said planned area of the development company. In the year 1951, Development Co-operative merged with 'Gapabandhu Nagar Building Co-operative Society', in which, the purchasers of the house of 'Gapabandhu Nagar' colony including the mother of the plaintiff became the members. After construction of buildings, the Gapabandhu Nagar Building Co-operative Society handed over the possession of the houses to its all members including the mother of the plaintiff and accordingly, mother of the plaintiff occupied her house at Gapabandhu Nagar Colony, Berhampur on 05.02.1953. Unfortunately, the mother of the plaintiff died in the year 1964 leaving behind her husband and children including the plaintiff. In its next year, i.e., in the year 1965, the father of the plaintiff also died leaving behind the plaintiff along with his other children and after the death of the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff became 'Karta' of his joint family.

6. In the approved lay out plan in favour of the Gapabandhu Nagar Building Co-operative Society, there were distinct and separate spaces for parks. Out of which, one space for Park is at the front of the house of the plaintiff. When Gapabandhu Nagar Building Co-operative Society could not able to construct the parks, as it defuncted, for which, the space, which was in front of the house of the plaintiff remained vacant. Therefore, in the year 1953, the father of the plaintiff as well as the plaintiff occupied that vacant space meant for park in front of their house and used the same for their own purposes and accordingly, since 1953 till date, the said properties, i.e., the suit properties in front of the house of the plaintiff is under the occupation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had/has been occupying the suit properties continuously since time of his father, for which, he (plaintiff) has perfected his title over the suit properties through adverse possession. The plaintiff had/has been using the suit properties raising flower garden and parking place. But, in the year 1987, Berhampur Municipality served a notice on the plaintiff to vacate the suit properties, but, he (plaintiff) gave reply disclaiming the right of the Municipality on the same and claiming his title thereon through adverse possession. Thereafter, Berhampur Municipality remained silent without taking any step. But, in the year 1988, the plaintiff found that, the local Revenue Inspector is taking measurement of the suit properties occupied by the plaintiff with a view to laying foundation on the same on behalf of the State, though State has no right over the suit properties. When the defendant-State through its Revenue Inspector tri