A valid lease grants the holder superior rights over a property, and proof of adverse possession requires definitive evidence of long-standing control, including all parties' claims in possession disputes.

JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J.

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) has assailed the judgment and decree 18.02.1986 and 03.03.1986 respectively passed by the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge, Khurdha in Title Appeal No.02 of 1985.

By the same the Appeal filed by the present Appellant (Plaintiff) under Section 96 of the code has been dismissed and thereby, the judgment and decree dated 15.03.1985 and 28.03.1985 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, Khurdha in O.S. No.102 of 1982 have stood confirmed.

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 Trial Court.

3. Plaintiffs case is that he is the owner in possession of the suit property which is the subject matter of the suit.

The Plaintiff having applied for lease of the suit land which was lying fallow was so granted by the Tahasildar, Banapur in Lease Case No.647 of 1975. It is stated that such lease had been granted by the Competent Authority by observing all the required legal formalities. After the grant of such lease the records were accordingly corrected. The Plaintiff got the possession of the suit land. It is pleaded that the Plaintiff has thus the right, title and interest over the suit land and has been paying the rent being recorded as Sthitiban Raiyat over the same. It is also stated that he has been paying the rent as to the State as has been assessed. The Defendants being envious of such grant of lease of the suit land in favour of the Plaintiff created disturbance in his peaceful possession over the suit land. It is stated that the Defendants mischievously filed an Application before the Divisional Officer, Khurda for cancellation of lease by making some false and frivolous allegation against the Plaintiff. It is stated that the Plaintiff having thus got the occupancy the right over the property in question; the Defendants have nothing to do with the same. Alleging that on 01.09.1982, the Defendants came and damaged the crop raised by the Plaintiff over the suit land, when that invited strong apprehension in the mind of the Plaintiff that the Defendants would be again proceeding in the matter by taking law into their own hands, the suit has come to be filed. It maybe stated here that the Plaintiff besides arraigning those persons creating disturbance in possession of the property as Defendants has also impleaded the State of Orissa (Respondent No.11) as Defendant No.11.

4. The Defendants Nos. 1 to 10 in their written statement have questioned the right, title and interest of the Plaintiff over the suit property. They claim that they are in possession over the suit property since the time of their ancestors for more than 30 years prior to suit and as such they have acquired title over the said property by way of adverse possession. The Defendants thus, state that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed. It has been further stated that the lease in question which is projected by the Plaintiff to be the source of his right, title and interest over the property is the outcome of the fraudulent activities at his part in collusion for other Authorities of the State. They have stated that the suit land originally was waste land belonging to the State and the ancestors of the Defendants had reclaimed it by converting it fit for cultivation and they having amalgamated the suit land with their own Raiyati land have been in occupation of the same. The lease is said to be invalid and inoperative in the eye of law. It is