Claims related to adverse possession require explicit, clear evidence of continuous and hostile possession; mere long-term possession does not confer title without supporting legal criteria.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the confirming Judgment.

2. The appellants and the respondent No.4 of this 2^nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 and they were the appellants before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.40 of 1995.

The respondent Nos.1 to 3 of this 2^nd Appeal were the defendants before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 and they were the respondents before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.40 of 1995.

The suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 before the Trial Court was a suit for declaration of title, conformation of possession and permanent injunction.

3. The case of the plaintiffs in the suit vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 before the trial court as per their pleadings was that, the suit land is Hal Plot No.486/626 under Hal Khata No.140 Ac.0.07 decimals in Mouza Sankrupa under Pattamundai Police Station in the district of Cuttack. The said suit Hal Plot No.486/626 corresponds to Sabik Plot No.210, as per Sabik settlement of the year, 1930. The said Sabik Plot No.210 was a tank adjoining to Sabik Plot Nos.234,235,237,238,239 & 240 of the plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiffs filled up the said suit tank in the year, 1935 and used the same as their Bari raising vegetable crops thereon. After the death of the father of the plaintiffs, about 40 years back, the plaintiffs possessed the suit Sabik plot No.210 like their father as before and constructed a house on a portion of it and used that house as their outhouse keeping the rest portion thereof vacant to the knowledge of ex- landlord as well as the defendants. Thereafter, in the Hal Settlement, the suit land has been recorded in the name of the defendant No.1 (state of Orissa) under Khata No.140 plot No.486/626, but in the remarks column thereof, the unlawful possession of the plaintiffs has been noted.

After publication of the Hal Settlement R.o.R of the suit land in the name of the defendant No.1 (State of Orissa), the defendant No.2 (Addl. Tahasildar, Pattamundai) started an Encroachment Case bearing Encroachment Case No.128/88 against the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, in which, they (plaintiff Nos.1 & 2) appeared. That L.E. Case No.128/88 was disposed of finally imposing Rs.170/- penalty against the plaintiffs for their illegal possession of the suit plot No.486/626. Again, the defendant No.3 (Tahasildar, Pattamundai) started an another Encroachment Case bearing Encroachment Case No.136/90 against the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land, in which, the plaintiffs filed their objection stating their continuous possession to the suit land since the time of their father i.e. since 1935 to the knowledge of everybody including the defendants and claimed their title over the suit land through adverse possession.

So, without getting any way, in order to file a civil suit against the defendants for declaration of their title over the suit properties, they (plaintiffs) issued statutory notices under Section 80 of the CPC , 1908 to the defendants on 31.01.1990, those were received by the defendants on dated 02.02.1990 and 04.02.1990 respectively. But, in spite of receiving such statutory notices under of the , 1908 the defendants did not give any response/reply, for which, the plaintiffs approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 against the defendants praying for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit properties by way of adverse possess