IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK S.A. No.124 of 1991 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan and …. Appellants another -versus-

State of Orissa and others …. Respondents Appeared in this case:-

For Appellants : Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. R.K. Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. G. Mohanty Learned Standing Counsel CORAM:

JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing : 15.04.2025 / date of judgment : 16.05.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The appellants in this 2^nd appeal were the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.15 of 1988 and respondent nos.1 and 2 before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.20 of 1989.

3. The respondents in this 2^nd appeal were the defendant nos.1 and 2 before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.15 of 1988 and appellants before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.20 of 1989.

The respondent no.3 in this 2^nd appeal was the defendant no.3 before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.15 of 1988 and the respondent no.3 before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A.

No.20 of 1989.

4. The case of the plaintiffs(appellants in this 2^nd appeal) against the defendants(respondents in this 2^nd appeal) as per the averments made in their plaint was that, plaintiff no.1 is the wife of Ratnakar Pradhan and plaintiff no.2 is the son of Ratnakar Pradhan.

The husband of the plaintiff no.1 and the father of the plaintiff no.2, i.e., Ratnakar Pradhan is unheard of for a long period and due to non-availability of his whereabouts in spite of the best efforts of the plaintiffs to search out him, he (Ratnakar Pradhan) could not be traced out, for which, he (Ratnakar Pradhan) has not been made as a party in the suit. So, the plaintiffs have taken the shoes of Ratnakar Pradhan.

The suit land stands recorded in the name of Government as per the revenue records of Sabik as well as Hal Settlement. Ratnakar Pradhan (husband of the plaintiff no.1 and father of the plaintiff no.2) was possessing the suit properties peacefully reclaiming the bushes from the same and after the civil death of Ratnakar Pradhan, the plaintiffs are in continuous possession over the suit properties like Ratnakar Pradhan to the knowledge of all without any hindrance from anybody.

The suit properties are adjacent to the plaintiffs recorded properties. The plaintiffs are the owners of Plot No.2620 A0.21 decimals. The suit properties are A0.15 decimals of Plot No.2621, which is situated to the adjacent South of their Plot No.2620.

The plaintiffs and Ratnakar Pradhan as of their right have been possessing the suit properties, i.e., Plot No.2621 along with the trees standing thereon amalgamating the same with their Plot No.2620 converting the same into Gharabari Kisam since the time of Late Bharat Pradhan, i.e., since the time of the father of Ratnakar Pradhan.

The grand-father of the plaintiff no.2, i.e., Late Bharat Pradhan had raised two Teak(Saguan) trees over suit Plot No.2621 during his life time and the said two teak (Saguan) trees were grown up under the care, protection, ownership and possession of the plaintiffs. For which, they(plaintiffs) have perfected their title over the suit properties by virtue of their peaceful possession over the same.

As per the notings made in the remarks column of Hal RoR, the defendant nos.1 to 3 have admitted the possession of Ratnakar Pradhan over the suit properties. Because, unauthorized occupation of Ratnakar Pradhan in respect of the suit properties for an area of A0.15 decimals has been noted in the remarks column of the Hal RoR. So, the State has lost its right, title and interest over the suit properties. Because, the plaintiffs have derived title of the same by virtue of adverse possession possessing the same for more than 50 years without any hindrance from any quarter.

When, on dated 13.02.1988, the defend