Claiming adverse possession implies acknowledgment of the other party's title, and appellate courts must consider all evidence rather than rely solely on select reports.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The predecessors of the Appellant Nos.1 to 6 along with Appellant No.7 of this Second Appeal were the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 in the suit vide T.S. No.12 of 1978 and they were the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.14/1 of 1983-84-I.

The Respondent No.1 of this Second Appeal was the defendant No.1 in the suit vide T.S. No.12 of 1978 and he was the sole Appellant in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.14/1 of 1983-84-I.

The Respondent Nos.8 and 9 of this Second Appeal were the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit vide T.S. No.12 of 1978 and they were the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the First Appeal vide T.A. No. 14/1 of 1983-84-I.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.12 of 1978 was a suit for declaration, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction, in alternative for delivery of possession.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in the suit vide T.S. No.12 of 1978 was that, the suit properties are two plots i.e. Plot No.83 measuring area Ac.0.47 decimals under Khata No.16/Ka and Plot No.83/1/416 measuring area Ac.0.12 decimals under Khata No.16/Ka/74 in village Gaduatopa under Barbil Tahasil in the District of Keonjhar.

The suit properties were settled in the name of the plaintiff No.1 and as well as the father of the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 in Jagiri Case No.116 of 1967 after abolition of the estates as per Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 and accordingly, the plaintiffs being the owners of the suit properties, they had been possessing the same.

In the year 1975, the defendant No.1 forcibly entered into the suit properties, for which, at the instance of the plaintiff No.1, a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. vide Crl. Misc. Case No.60 of 1975 was initiated against the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit properties. In that proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., the suit properties were attached. But, subsequent thereto, that proceeding vide Crl. Misc. Case No.60 of 1975 was dropped. For which, the plaintiffs approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.12 of 1978 against the defendant No.1 arraying defendant Nos.2 and 3 as the proforma defendants praying for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit properties and also for confirmation of their possession thereon and also for permanent injunction, in alternative for delivery of possession through Court, if they (plaintiffs) are found to be dispossessed from the suit properties by the defendant No.1 forcibly during the pendency of the suit.

5. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 were set ex parte without filing any written statement being the supporters of the plaintiffs.

The defendant No.1 contested the suit of the plaintiffs by filing his written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint by taking his stands specifically that, the suit properties are under Plot No.86, but not under Plot No.83. The plaintiffs were never in possession over the suit properties. He (defendant No.1) is in possession over the suit properties since last 20 years.

The further case of defendant No.1 was that, if it will be found that, the suit properties are in the name of the plaintiffs, still then, he (defendant No.1) has acquired right, title and interest over the suit properties by way of adverse possession through his continuous peaceful possession over the same for more than 12 years. For which, the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable under law and as such the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit. The suit of the plaintiffs is also bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of parties. So, t