Continuous possession alone does not establish adverse possession; clear proof of hostility and specific dates of possession are essential requirements.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the conforming judgment.

The Appellant was the Plaintiff in the suit vide T.S. No.73 of 2001 and Appellant in the First Appeal vide R.F.A. No.38/12 of 2005-07. The Respondents were the Defendants in the suit vide T.S. No.73 of 2001 and Respondents in the First Appeal vide R.F.A. No.38/12 of 2005-07.

2. The suit of the Plaintiff vide T.S. No.73 of 2001 was a suit for declaration, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction.

3. The case of the Plaintiff against the Defendant No.1 (State of Odisha) was that, he (plaintiff) and the defendant No.2 are two brothers and their father was late Kashinath Tripathy.

4. The suit land described in Schedule-A of the plaint has been continuing in the name of the State of Odisha (Defendant No.1) in all the settlements under Anabadi Khata. In the previous settlement prior to 1965, the kisam of the suit land was "Patra Jungle." The father of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 i.e. Kashinath Tripathy made the suit land fit for cultivation by engaging manual labour after cutting the bushes from the same. Therefore, in the last settlement, R.O.R., the kisam of the suit land has been changed from "Patra Jungle" to "Atmamuli". During last settlement operation, the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 had filed objection case No.148 of 1975 for recording the suit land in their names jointly stating that, they are in continuous possession over the suit land since the time of their father i.e. since the year 1965 openly to the knowledge of Defendant No.1 (State), by which, they (Plaintiff and Defendant No.2) have perfected their title on the same by way of adverse possession. But, the Settlement Authorities recorded the possession of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 in the remarks column of R.O.R. only in respect of suit Plot No.223, but did not record their possession in the remarks column of the R.O.R. in respect of other two suit plots vide Plot No.223/1972, 384/1973, though they are in continuous possession over all the three suit plots for more than 35 years. Surprisingly, the Tahasildar, Balangir initiated a case vide Encroachment Case No.131/2000 under the O.P.L.E. Act for eviction of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 from all the suit plots, although, they are in continuous possession over all the suit plots prior to 1965 and they have already perfected their title over all the suit plots since the year 1995 by way of adverse possession. So, as per law that, State (Defendant No.1) had no authority to initiate the encroachment case against them, because, State has got no objection against their title over the suit land. The further case of the Plaintiff was that, the suit properties are the only source of their income, because, they are managing their bread and food from the usufructs of the suit properties. So, due to perfection of their title over the suit properties by way of adverse possession, the right, title, interest and possession of the State (Defendant No.1) over the suit properties has already been extinguished/lost and the title of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 has already been created over the suit properties by the operation of law in course of their long continuous possession over the same for more than 35 years. But, when the Tahasildar, Balangir tried to evict them (Plaintiff and Defendant No.2) from the suit properties through initiation of above encroachment case, then the Plaintiff filed the suit vide T.S. No.73 of 2001 against the State (Defendant No.1) arraying his brother as performa Defendant No.2 praying for declaration of their title over the suit properties, confirma