A claim of title through adverse possession is inadmissible when a claimant asserts title through inheritance over the same property, as these claims are mutually exclusive.

Judgment :

A.C. Behera, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

2 . The appellants of this Second Appeal were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit, vide T.S. No.172 of 1988-I and they were the appellants before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.112 of 1994.

The respondents of this Second Appeal were the defendants before the Trial Court in the suit, vide T.S. No.172 of 1988-I and they were the respondents before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.112 of 1994.

3 . The suit of the plaintiffs (appellants in this Second Appeal) vide T.S. No.172 of 1988-I before the Trial Court was a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

4 . As per the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint, the suit properties were originally under the Zamidari Estate of the ex-landlord (zamidar) Bira Kishore Das. In the year 1938, the said Bira Kishore Das inducted the father of the plaintiffs i.e. Biswanath Kuanr and his brother Sripati Kuanr as the tenants of the suit properties. Accordingly, on the basis of the induction made by the ex-intermediary Bira Kishore Das to the father of the plaintiffs and his brother i.e. Biswanath Kuanr and Sripati Kuanr, they (Biswanath Kuanr and Sripati Kuanr) were possessing the suit properties as the tenants under the ex-intermediary Bira Kishore Das on payment of annual rent to him (ex-intermediary/zamidar-Bira Kishore Das). But, subsequent thereto, there was a family partition between the father of the plaintiffs i.e. Biswanath Kuanr and his brother Sripati Kuanr in the year 1939 in respect of the suit properties along with their other joint properties and in such partition, the suit properties had fallen into the share of the father of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, since the year 1939, the father of the plaintiffs i.e. Biswanth Kuanr was cultivating the suit properties exclusively by raising 1242 varieties of paddies on the same. But, in or about 1954-55, the ex-intermediary estates in the suit area were abolished and on the basis of the abolition of the ex- intermediary estates, the suit properties vested with the Government and even after vesting of the suit properties with the Government, the father of the plaintiffs i.e. Biswanath Kuanr continued his possession over the suit properties as before under the State Government. Subsequent thereto, the Hal settlement operation was started in the suit area and in the Hal settlement, though the suit properties were erroneously recorded in the name of the defendant No.2 (Hadibandhu Mohanty) under Hal Khata No.698, but there was noting of possession in the name of the father of the plaintiffs i.e. Biswanath Kuanr in the remarks column of the suit plot as a forcible possessor thereof. Inspite of recording of the suit properties erroneously in Hal R.o.R. under Hal Khata No.698 in the name of the defendant No.2 (Hadibandhu Mohanty), the father of the plaintiffs i.e. Biswanath Kuanr was possessing the suit properties as before, in which, the defendant No.2 had no manner of right, title, interest and possession.

When on the basis of the wrong recording of the suit properties in the Hal R.o.R. in the name of the defendant No.2, he (defendant No.2) created disturbances in the possession of the father of the plaintiffs in the suit properties, then, in order to avoid future disputes and litigations with defendant No.2, there was a settlement in September, 1985 between the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 and in such settlement, it was agreed by the defendant No.2 that, he would sell away the suit properties in favour of the father of the plaintiffs for consideration of Rs.2,000/- and the father of the plaintiffs paid Rs.500/- out of consideration amount of Rs.2,000/- as an advance to the defendant No.2 towards the part performance of the above contract between them.

Subsequent thereto, the defendant No.1 had managed to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit properties i