Ownership must be proven in eviction cases; mere possession does not suffice without proof of landlord-tenant relationship. Suit filed beyond limitation period is barred.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the reversing Judgment.

2. The appellants in this 2^nd Appeal were the defendant Nos.1 and 3 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S No.189 of 1999 and respondent Nos.1 and 4 before the learned First Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.50/2010.

The respondent No.1 in this 2nd Appeal was the sole plaintiff before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S No.189 of 1999 and the appellant before the learned First Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.50/2010.

The respondent Nos.2 to 5 in this 2^nd Appeal were the defendant Nos.2(a), 2(b), 4 and 5 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S No.189 of 1999 and respondent Nos.2,3,5 and 6 before the learned First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide R.F.A. No.50/2010.

3. The suit of the plaintiff (respondent No.1 in this 2nd Appeal) against the defendants (appellants and respondent Nos.2 to 5 in this 2^nd Appeal) vide T.S No.189 of 1999 was a suit for declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits.

The suit land is Hal Plot No.393 Ac.0.509 Decimals (Kisam-Gharabari), consisting of pucca structures, coconut tress etc. under Hal Khata No.93 in Mouza-Chakratirtha in the District of Puri corresponds to Sabik Plot No.1137, Ac.0.50 Decimals under Sabik Khata No.196 of Sabik Mouza-Balukhanda described in the schedule of the plaint.

4. As per the averments made in the plaint, the case of the plaintiff is that, the suit properties belong to Emar Math, Puri, in which, the plaintiff is the Mahanta. He (plaintiff) instituted the suit vide T.S No.189 of 1999 as Mahanta of Emar Math, Puri.

The defendant No.1 i.e. Dibya Dham Yogashram is a juristic person, which is represented through its Secretary i.e. Rabinarayan Mishra (defendant No.3).

The Emar Math, Puri is the owner of the suit properties described in schedule of the plaint. The father of the Defendant No.2 i.e. Biswanath Mishra was a monthly tenant in the house on the suit properties of Emar Math, Puri. After the death of Biswanath Mishra, his daughter i.e. Kanakalata Devi (defendant No.2) was the tenant in the house on the suit properties like her father Biswanath Mishra and she was paying monthly rent for the same to the plaintiff, but she (defendant No.2) did not pay any rent of the same to the plaintiff after 1987, then, she (defendant No.2) being a trespasser of the suit properties created a fake society i.e. defendant No.1 (Dibyadham Jogashram) on the suit properties.

According to plaintiff, the suit properties originally belonged to Raghabaji Daya. For which, in the settlement of the year 1927, the suit properties were recorded under Chandanadar status in the name of Raghabaji Daya. The said Raghabaji Daya had constructed a thatched house on the suit properties and subsequently renovated the same in the year, 1930 converting the same to brick built structure building incurring loan from Jagannath Bank Limited, Puri. When, the loan dues of Jagannath Bank Limited, Puri became outstanding against Raghabaji Daya (Owner of the suit properties), he (Raghabaji Daya) sold the suit properties to Emar Math, Puri on being represented through its Mahanta Gadadhar Ramanuja Das executing and registering a sale deed dated 26.07.1930 after receiving consideration amount of Rs.14,500/- and through such consideration amount, he (Raghabaji Daya) cleared his outstanding loan dues of Jagannath Bank Limited, Puri. As such, since the date of above purcahse i.e. since 26.07.1930, th