Claims of title through documentation cannot coexist with claims of adverse possession; a plaintiff must provide consistent and sufficient evidence to establish ownership.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

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

2. The appellant in this 2^nd appeal, i.e., Shyama Baske was the plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.88 of 1995-I and the appellant before the 1st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.4 of 1999.

3. The respondent in this 2nd appeal was the defendant before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.88 of 1995-I and respondent before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.04 of 1999.

4. The suit of the plaintiff vide T.S. No.88 of 1995-I before the trial court was a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

The suit properties are M.S. Khata No.1193(Rakshita), M.S. Plot No.307 Ac.3.05 decimals in Mouza-Baradiha under Raibania Police Station in the district of Balasore corresponds to Sabik Khata No.511 Plot No.243 Ac.4.14 decimals.

According to the plaintiff, the suit properties vide Sabik Khata No.511 Plot No.244 were originally under the Zimadary estate of ex-zamindar, i.e. super landlord Bibhuti Bhusan Basu. Bhagaban Chandra Patra and others were the ex-intermediaries of the same under the super landlord Bibhuti Bhusan Basu. The plaintiff(Shyama Baske) requested ex-landlord-Bibhuti Bhusan Basu in the year, 1950 for providing the suit properties to him for cultivation purpose, to which, the ex-landlord Bibhuti Bhusan Basu accepted and issued an Amalnama Patta in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff for cultivation purpose. Then, the plaintiff-Shyama Baske reclaimed the suit properties and made the same fit for cultivation purpose and cultivated the same. Accordingly, since the year 1950, he(plaintiff) had/has been possessing the suit properties continuously. Before abolition of the ex- intermediary system, he(plaintiff) was paying rent of the suit properties in each and every year before the Zamindary Sirasta of the ex-intermediaries and he(plaintiff) was obtaining rent receipts. At the time of abolition of the ex- intermediary system, the ex-intermediaries submitted Ruffa of the suit properties in the name of the plaintiff. For which, after vesting of the ex-intermediary system in the year 1956/57, T.L. No.1019 in respect of the suit properties was opened in the name of the plaintiff. After abolition of the ex- intermediary system, the plaintiff-Shyama Baske was paying rent of the suit properties to the Government and was obtaining rent receipts. So, in view of the long standing and continuous possession of the plaintiff-Shayama Baske over the suit properties for more than 40 years, he(plaintiff) Shyama Baske has acquired occupancy right over the suit properties and he had/has been possessing the same peacefully, continuously uninterruptedly with the knowledge of the defendant. Therefore, his possession over the suit properties has become adverse against the defendant.

When, the Hal Settlement Operation in the area of the plaintiff was going on, the plaintiff applied before the Settlement Authorities for preparation of the separate record of right of the suit properties in his name. The settlement authorities after conducting enquiry assured him(plaintiff) for recording the suit properties in his name, but, subsequently, on dated 17.06.1994, the plaintiff came to know from the local R.I. that, the suit properties have been erroneously recorded under Rakshita Khata in the name of the Government and the local R.I. did not receive the rent of the suit properties from him(plaintiff). For which, after obtaining the certified copy of the Hal RoR of the suit properties vide Khata No.1193, Plot No.307, Ac.3.05 decimals o