IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RSA No.426 of 2024 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) Taramani Mohapatra and Another …. Appellants -versus- Rebati Pallai and Others …. Respondents For Appellants - Mr.A.P.Bose, Advocate For Respondents - Mr.P.Rath, Sr. Advocate Ms.S.Das, Advocate (for the Respondent Nos.1 and 4) Mr.G.Mishra, Sr.Advocate Mr.J.R.Deo, Advocate (For the Respondent Nos.2 and 3) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :06.03.2026:: Date of Judgment :31.03.2026 A.C. Behera, J. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment. 2. The Appellants and Respondent Nos.5 to 8 in this Second Appeal were the Defendants before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.07 of 2019 and Appellants and Respondent No.5 before the learned 1st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.101 of 2023. The predecessors of the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in this 2nd appeal i.e. Prahallad Chandra Palai was the sole Plaintiff before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.07 of 2019. When during the pendency of the suit vide C.S. No.07 of 2019, the sole Plaintiff Prahallad Chandra Palai expired, then, his LRs. i.e. Respondent Nos.1 o 4 in this 2nd appeal were substituted in his place and they were Respondent Nos.1 to 4 before the learned 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide R.F.A No.101 of 2023. 3. According to the suit of the Plaintiffs (Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in this 2nd appeal) vide C.S. No.07 of 2019 before the learned Trial Court against the Defendants (Appellants and Respondent Nos.5 to 8 in this 2nd appeal) was a suit for eviction, realization of arrear rent, in alternative declaration of title and recovery of possession. 4. As per the case of the Plaintiff, the suit properties described in Schedule of the Plaint were his ancestral properties. As per the decree passed in a suit for partition vide C.S. No.470 of 2000 between Plaintiff Prahallad Chandra Palai and his co-sharers, the suit properties had fallen in his share. As such, Plaintiff became the exclusive owner. R.o.R. of the suit properties was prepared in his name exclusively on the basis of the above compromise decree passed in the suit vide C.S. No.470 of 2000. He (Plaintiff) constructed houses on the suit properties and let out the said houses on monthly rent to Gangadhar Mohapatra (predecessor of the Defendants). Initially monthly rent thereof was Rs.100/-. Subsequently, the said monthly rent increased gradually. When, Gangadhar Mohapatra expired, then, his successors i.e. Defendants continued as tenants in the said houses on the suit properties under the Plaintiff like Gangadhar Mohapatra. In the year 2018, monthly rent thereof was Rs.6500/-. After April, 2018, the Defendants did not pay rent of the suit houses to the Plaintiff, for which, Plaintiff asked for the same, but, they (Defendants) denied to pay the rent, instead of which, used filthy languages against him (Plaintiff). For which, the Plaintiff issued an Advocate notice through registered post on dated 16.11.2018 to the Defendants determining their tenancy and requested to vacate the houses after paying arrear rents. Out of the Defendants, only Defendant No.4 received the said notice, but, other Defendants avoided to receive the same. The Defendants in response to the said notice dated 16.11.2018 of the Plaintiff replied through their Advocate Shri Purna Chandra Mohanty taking false pleas that, their predecessor Gangadhar Mohapatra was residing in the houses on the suit properties since 1932 and he had constructed pucca house and asbestos houses on the same. The father of Plaintiff i.e. Narayan Palai had taken money from Gangadhar Mohapatra to sell the suit properties, but, did not execute the sale deed during his lifetime. For which, they (Defendants) being the successors of the Gangadhar Mohapatra, they are the owners of the suit properties, in which, the Plaintiff has no interest and possession. Therefore, he (Plaintiff) cannot evict them (Defendants) from the suit properties and houses thereon. When, the Defendants claimed their ownership and possession in the suit properties in their reply to the Advocate notice of the Plaintiff denying the title of the Plaintiff, then, he (Plaintiff) filed the suit vide C.S. No.07 of 2019 on dated 03.01.2019 against the Defendants seeking aforesaid relief(s) i.e. eviction, realization of arrear rent, in alternative declaration of title and recovery of possession. When, during the pendency of the suit vide C.S. No.07 of 2019, the sole Plaintiff Prahallad Chandra Palai expired, then, his LRs were substituted in his place as Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4. 5. Having been noticed from the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.07 of 2019 of the Plaintiff, the Defendants contested the same by filing their joint written statement denying the averments made by the Plaintiffs in their plaint taking their specific stands/pleas in Para Nos.14 to 20 of their joint written statement that, originally, the suit land was in the name of Narayan Pallai, father of the Plaintiff Prahallad Chandra Palai. Narayan Pallai expired in the year 1972 leaving behind his six sons namely Dhruba, Prahallad, Ankura, Udhaba, Manibhadra and Laxmidhar and four daughters namely Budhi, Ambi, Mina and Sina. The predecessor of the Defendants i.e. Gangadhar Mohapatra was working as a Mahurir at Bhadrak Court since 1927 and he (Gangadhar Mohapatra) had born in the year 1907. While, Gangadhar Mohapatra was working as an Advocate Clerk, he (Gangadhar Mohapatra) remained in the house of Narayan Palai on the suit land on dated 02.03.1932 and by that time, the house on the suit land was a thatched mud house. Their predecessor i.e. Gangadhar Mohapatra expired on 12.06.1987 leaving behind them (Defendants) as his successors. Their predecessor Gangadhar Mohapatra had cordial relationship with Narayan Pallai (Father of the Plaintiff) and Gangadhar Mohapatra as a Mahurir, he was looking after the cases of Narayan Pallai (Father of the Plaintiff) at Bhadrak Court and he (Gangadhar Mohapatra) was residing in the house on the suit land with his family members. Narayan Pallai (Father of the Plaintiff) was residing at his native village. As, Narayan Pallai was satisfied with their predecessor Gangadhar Mohapatra, he (Narayan Pallai) was not taking any rent from Gangadhar Mohapatra for his staying in the house on the suit land, as he (Gangadhar Mohapatra) was looking after all cases of Narayan Palai at Bhadrak Court. In the year 1948, due to high flood, the thatched house on the suit land collapsed. So, Gangadhar Mohapatra construed a pucca house on the suit land by his own money and remained in that house with his family members including the Defendants. They (Defendant Nos. 3 to 5) being the children of Gangadhar Mohapatra, they had born and brought up in the house on the suit land. Except the house on the suit land, Gangadhar Mohapatra had no other house at Bhadrak. As such, the suit land as well as the house standing thereon were possessed exclusively by their predecessor Gangadhar Mohapatra. In the year 1953, Gangadhar Mohapatra had let out two rooms on the suit land to Project Executive Office, Bhadrak on rent for their Departmental store room. The father of the Plaintiff i.e. Narayan Pallai expired in the year 1972. During the life time of Narayan Palai, his family condition was not good, for which, Narayan Palai had not raised any objection and he had not opposed to the possession of Gangadhar Mohapatra on the suit land. As such, Narayan Pallai had acknowledged to the possession of Gangadhar Mohapatra on the suit land. So, Gangadhar Mohapatra was in exclusive possession over the suit land with his family members. Neither during the lifetime of Narayan Palai nor after his death, the Plaintiff or his any brothers had opposed to the possession of Gangadhar Mohapatra on the suit land. So, Gangadhar Mohapatra was not a monthly tenant either under Narayan Pallai or his sons including Plaintiff in respect of the houses on the suit land. During the lifetime of Narayan Pallai, he had not taken any step to evict Gangadhar Mohapatra from the houses on the suit land. After the death of Narayan Pallai, neither Plaintiff nor his any brother had taken step to evict either Gangadhar Mohapatra or the Defendants from the houses on the suit land. Gangadhar Mohapatra had constructed one pucca house on the suit land after obtaining due permission from the NAC and he was paying holding tax of the same. After the death of Gangadhar Mohapatra, the Defendants being his successors, they (Defendants) are residing in the houses on the suit land with their family members and they have also constructed two latrines and installed tube-wells and they have also erected one RCC roofed building on the same. Among the Defendants, the Defendant No.6 i.e. Chittaranjan Mohapatra has constructed a Pucca building on the suit land in the year 1982 and he is possessing the same. They (Defendants) had/have been possessing the suit properties and the houses thereon since the time of their father Gangadhar Mohapatra i.e. since 02.03.1932 continuously, openly and freely without any hindrance on their own strength as of right with full knowledge of Plaintiffs and his father Narayan Pallai. For which, they (Defendants) have acquired possessory title over the suit land and houses thereon. Knowing their said possession, neither the Plaintiffs nor any of their relatives had tried to take any action against their predecessor Gangadhar Mohapatra or against them (Defendants), rather, they (Plaintiffs) had accepted them (Defendants) as owners and occupier of the suit land and houses thereon. They (defendants) along with their written statement, filed their counterclaim against the Plaintiffs stating that, they (defendants) have acquired their possessory title over the suit properties and the houses thereon. They (Defendants) in their counterclaim made prayers that, to declare their possessory title over the suit properties along with the houses thereon, to declare that, the Plaintiff has not acquired any right over the suit land, to injunct the Plaintiff permanently from entering into the suit land and from creating any disturbances in their peaceful possession in the suit land and the houses thereon along with other reliefs, to which, they (Defendants) are entitled for. 6. The Plaintiff challenged the counterclaim of the Defendants by filing his written statement taking his stands that, he (Plaintiff) is the exclusive owner of the suit properties and the houses thereon. The Defendants have no right to possess the same. Therefore, he (Plaintiff) is entitled to get the decree of recovery of possession of the suit properties and houses thereon against the Defendants. As per law, the Defendants are the trespassers of the suit properties and houses thereon. Therefore, the counterclaim of the Defendants is liable to be dismissed. 7. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether twelve numbers of issues were framed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.07 of 2019 and the said issues are:- I s s u e s 1. Whether, the suit is maintainable? 2. Whether, the plaintiffs has any cause of action to file the present suit? 3. Whether, the suit is bad due to non-joinder of necessary Party? 4. Whether, the plaintiff has right, title interest and possession over the suit land? 5. Whether, the Plaintiff is entitled for arrear rent amount of Rs.58,000/-? 6. Whether, the Plaintiff is entitled a decree of recovery possession by evicting defendant from the suit schedule land? 7. Whether, the counterclaim is maintainable? 8. Whether, the Defendants have any cause of action to file the present counterclaim? 9. Whether, defendants possessory title be declared with regard suit land along with the house? 10. Whether, Plaintiff shall permanently be restrained from creating any disturbance in suit land? 11. To what other relief/reliefs, the Defendants are entitled? 12. To what other relief/reliefs, the defendants are entitled? 8. In order to substantiate the aforesaid reliefs sought for by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants, they (Plaintiffs) examined one witness from their side i.e. to the Plaintiff No.3 as P.W.1 and exhibited several documents on their behalf vide Exts.1 to 9. On the contrary, in order to defeat/nullify the suit of the Plaintiffs and for the decree of their counterclaim in their favour, they (Defendants) examined three numbers of witnesses from their side including the Defendant No.3 as D.W.1 and exhibited several documents on their behalf vide Exts.A to G. 9. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, evidence and documents available in the record, the learned Trial Court answered issue Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants and basing upon the findings and observations made in the above issues, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the Plaintiffs in part on contest against the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 and ex parte against the Defendant No.6 and declared the right, title and interest of the Plaintiffs over the suit properties and directed the Defendants to deliver the possession of the suit properties and houses thereon in favour of the Plaintiffs within six months, failing which, the Plaintiffs are at liberty to take the recourse of law for recovery of possession of the same and dismissed to the counterclaim of the Defendants on contest against the Plaintiffs as per its judgment and decree dated 11.08.2023 and 25.08.2023 respectively assigning the reasons that, “as, the Defendants have claimed possessory title over the suit properties and the houses thereon against the Plaintiffs through adverse possession, for which, they (Defendants) admitted to the title of the Plaintiffs over the suit properties and as it is the case of the Defendants that, their predecessor Gangadhar Mohapatra was possessing the suit properties on the permission of its owner Narayan Palai (father of the Plaintiff), for which, such possession of Gangadhar Mohapatra was permissive and that permissive possession can never be turned to possessory title of the Defendants and as per the orders passed in objection case Nos.9994/78 (Ext.4), 2900/86(Ext.5), 2831/86 (Ext.6) by the Settlement Authorities on contest, the claim of the Defendants for recording the suit properties in the name of their predecessor Gangadhar Mohapatra were rejected and the Defendants had not challenged to the same before the higher forum and as the R.o.R. of the suit properties has been published in favour of the Plaintiffs, for which, the Defendants have failed to establish their right, title, interest and lawful possession on the suit properties and the houses thereon. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree of declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit properties and also they (Plaintiffs) are entitled to get the decree of recovery of possession of the suit properties and the houses thereon, but, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to get the decree for arrear rent, as no document has been filed and proved relating to the detailed particulars thereof. When, the Defendants have no legal possession in the suit properties, then, they (Defendants) are not entitled for the decree of declaration of their possessory title over the suit properties as well as permanent injunction against the lawful owners i.e. Plaintiffs. As such, the Defendants are also not entitled to get the decree for injunction against its true owners i.e. against the Plaintiffs.” 10. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 11.08.2023 and 25.08.2023 respectively passed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.07 of 2019 against the Defendants, the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 challenged the same preferring 1st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.101 of 2023 being the Appellants against the Plaintiffs arraying them (Plaintiffs) as Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and also arraying the Defendant No.6 as proforma Respondent No.5. 11. After hearing from both the sides, the learned 1st Appellate Court dismissed that first Appeal vide R.F.A. No.101 of 2023 of the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 as per its judgment and decree dated 28.10.2024 and 07.11.2024 respectively concurring/confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.07 of 2019 in favour of the Plaintiffs (Respondent Nos.1 to 4) and against the Defendants (Appellants and Respondent No.5). 12. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the dismissal of the 1st Appeal of the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court in R.F.A. No101 of 2023, the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 challenged the same preferring this 2nd appeal being the Appellants against the Plaintiffs arraying them as Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and also arraying Defendant Nos.3 to 6 as proforma Respondent Nos.5 to 8. 13. This 2nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial questions of law and the said questions are :- i. Whether, the learned Courts below were correct in decreeing the Plaintiff’s suit, when the plea of tenancy fails, which was the basis of filing of the suit? ii. Whether, the learned Courts below should have non-suited the Plaintiffs, when their suit was filed with an alternative prayer and the said alternative prayer was contrary to the main prayer for eviction? 14. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Appellants, the learned Sr.Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 4 and the learned Sr.Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 16. When, as per the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court and learned 1st Appellate Court in their respective judgments and decrees in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants on the basis of the pleadings, evidence and materials available in the record, the aforesaid two formulated substantial questions of law are interlinked having ample nexus with each other, then, both the aforesaid substantial questions of law are taken up together analogously for their discussions hereunder. 15. The Appellants/Defendants in Para Nos.14, 15 and 18 of their written statement and counterclaim, they (Defendants) have specifically stated that, the suit properties were the properties of Narayan Palai (father of the Plaintiff). The predecessor of the Defendants i.e. Gangadhar Mohapatra was residing in the house on the suit properties without payment of any rent to Narayan Palai in lieu of looking after the cases of Narayan Palai at Bhadrak Court, as Gangadhar Mohapatra was a Mahurir in Bhadrak Court. In the counterclaim of the Defendants, they (Defendants) had prayed for declaration of their possessory title over the suit properties through adverse possession. 16. The Defendants have admitted to the title of the Plaintiffs over the suit properties through their aforesaid prayer in their counterclaim i.e. for declaration of their possessory title over the suit properties through adverse possession. Because, the aforesaid claim of the Defendants for declaration of their possessory title over the suit properties through adverse possession against the Plaintiffs is their indirect admission to the title of the Plaintiffs on the suit properties. Therefore, even if, the Plaintiffs failed to establish their relationship with the Defendants as landlords and tenants, still then, their alternative prayer for declaration of title and recovery of possession cannot be held as not maintainable under law. 17. It is the settled propositions of law that, the owners of the properties are always landlords. For which, even if, the owners of the properties fail to prove landlord and tenant relationship, still then, their suit like the present suit at hand for eviction against the Defendants under general law is fully maintainable. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Ramesh Kumar alias Mesha Vrs. Rama Kumari alias Kundra reported in 2011 (2) CCC 75 (P & H) and 2010 (3) Civ.C.C. 875 (P & H) that, Suit for possession—Owner of the property is always the landlord, even if, he/she fails to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant, still then, the suit for eviction under general law is maintainable. (ii) In a case between Swarn Lata Agarwal and another Vrs. Narang Medicine Co. reported in I (2016) CLT 209 (Delhi) that, Suit for possession, seeking eviction of defendant—Denial of title of Plaintiff in suit property and denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by defendant is mischievous. Act of Defendant is contrary to Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 18. When, the Defendants have admitted in their pleadings that, their predecessor Gangadhar Mohapatra was staying in the house on the suit properties on permission of its owner i.e. father of the Plaintiff i.e. Narayan Palai without payment of rent in lieu of looking after the cases of Narayan Palai at Bhadrak Court, as Gangadhar Mohapatra was a Mahurir at Bhadrak Court and when, Defendants have indirectly admitted to the ownership of the Plaintiffs over the suit properties claiming their possessory title on the same through adverse possession against the Plaintiffs, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, even if, there is failure on the part of the Plaintiffs to establish landlord and tenant relationship, still then, the suit of the Plaintiffs for recovery of possession against the Defendants declaring their title on the same under the general and common law cannot be held as not maintainable under law. For which, as answers to the above both the substantial questions of law, it is held that, even if, the Plaintiffs fail to establish landlord and tenant relationship, still then, their alternative prayer for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the Defendants is maintainable under law. Therefore, the concurrent findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court and learned 1st Appellate Court in respect of the same cannot be held as erroneous. 19. In the written statement with the counterclaim of the Defendnats, they (Defendants) had prayed for declaration of their possessory title over the suit properties through adverse possession. The requisites essentials in the pleadings, to claim possessory title over the suit properties like the Defendants/Appellants in their counterclaim has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Manorama Patra and another Vrs. Silla Sundari Patra and others reported in 2008 (Supp.II) OLR 642, 106 (2008) CLT 663 and 2008 (1) CLR 607 that, Land—Possessory Title—possession simpliciter without proof of hostile animus does not mature to the possessory title. (ii) In a case between P.H. Dayanand Vrs. S.Venugopal Naidu and others reported in 2009 (1) CLR (S.C.) 306 that, Possessory title is a good against everybody, other than the lawful owner. (iii) In a case between Biswanath Bandapadhyay Vrs. Smt. Purnamoni Dassi and another reported in AIR 1979 Calcutta 1, In a case between Somnath Burman Vrs. Dr.S.P. Raju and another reported in AIR 1970 (SC) 846, In a case between Nair Service Society Ltd. Vrs. Rev. Father K.C. Alexander and others reported in AIR 1968 (SC) 1165, In a case between Panchabati Ramachandra Vrs. Satyabhama Devi and others reported in AIR 1971 (Orissa) 135 and in a case between Mt.Koki and others Vrs. Chetwa Chamar and others reported in AIR 1972 (Patna) 241 that, Possessory title is a good against everybody other than the lawful owner. (iv) In a case between Chatti Konati Rao and others Vrs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao reported in (IV) 2010 Civ.L.T. (SC) 428 in Para No.14 that, Mere possession does not ripen into possessory title until possessor holds property adverse to the title of the true owner for the said purpose. (v) In a case between Annakili Vrs. A.Vedanayagam and others reported in (2007) 14 SCC 308 that, How, the claim of possessory title is to be established—Mere possession of the land would not ripen into possessory title. The possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. 20. The Defendants have claimed their possessory title over the suit properties against the Plaintiffs through adverse possession. The legal effect of the claim of adverse possession has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Gurbax Singh (dead) by Lrs. Vrs. Kamnail Singh reported in 2008 (4) CCC 239 (P & H) that, The plea of adverse possession necessarily implies the admission of the title of the Plaintiff. (ii) In a case between Jagat Singh and others Vrs. Srikishan Dass and others reported in 2008 (3) CCC 173 (P & H) that, Once a plea of adverse possession is raised by the Defendant, it pre-supposes the title over the suit land of the Plaintiff. The title of the Plaintiff is deemed to be admitted by the Defendant. (iii) In a case between Sultan and others Vrs. Kasturi and others reported in IV (2005) Civ.L.T.378 (P and H) that, Plea of adverse possession is an indirect admission of ownership of Plaintiff. (iv) In a case between Pappayammal Vrs. Palanisamy and others reported in 2005 (3) CCC 167 (Madras) that, A party can plead adverse possession, only when, he admits that, other party has title. 21. In the pleadings of the Defendants, they (Defendants) have specifically stated that, their predecessor Gangadhar Mohapatra was staying in the house on the suit properties on the permission of its owner Narayan Palai (father of the Plaintiff) without payment of rent to him in lieu of looking after the cases of Narayan Palai at Bhadrak Court, as he (Gangadhar Mohapatra) was a Mahurir at Bhadrak Court. As such, the pleadings of the Defendants are clear that, the possession of their predecessor i.e. Gangadhar Mohapatra on the suit properties was permissive and their predecessor Gangadhar Mohapatra was a tenant under the Plaintiff, as he was not paying rent in lieu of looking after the cases of its owner Narayan Palai (father of the Plaintiff) at Bhadrak Court. For which, the possession of the predecessor of the Defendants in the suit properties was on behalf of its owner Narayan Palai (father of the Plaintiff). 22. It is the settled propositions of law that, possession of a tenant is on behalf of its owner and his such possession is permissive in nature. That permissive possession can never be adverse. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others Vrs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (dead) through LRs. reported in 2012 (1) OLR (SC) 945 that, Possession of an agent, caretaker and tenant has no possession of his own and his possession, is the possession of the principal. A possessory suit is good against the whole world except the rightful owner. The said prayer is not maintainable against the true owner. (ii) In a case between Puran Singh and others Vrs. The State of Punjab reported in (1975) 4 SCC 518 in Para No.12 that, An occupation of the property by a person as an agent or a servant at the instance of the owner will not amount to his actual physical possession. (iii) In a case between Sawwad Ali Vrs. Rajesh Kumar and others reported in 2019 (4) Civ.C.C. 472 (Allahabad) in Para No.37 that, occupation of property by a person as an agent or a servant at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual physical possession. (iv) In a case between Rama Chandra Patra (dead) after him, his LRs. Chittaranjan Patra and othes Vrs. Raghunath Jew and others reported in 2015 (1) CLR 752 that, If, possession is permissive at the inception, it does not become adverse, unless by some positive overt act is indicated to the knowledge of the owner. (v) In a case between Dhaneswar Mahanty and others Vrs. Sitanath Das and others reported in AIR 1979 (Orissa) 177 that, When, possession begins with permission, the same can never become adverse unless hostile animus was expressed at any particular time to the knowledge of owner. (vi) In a case between Basant Kaur (dead) through her Lrs. Vrs. Bhag Singh and others reported in 2012 (1) CCC 117 (P & H) that, A permissive possession at inception not becomes adverse merely by passing of long time in absence of requisite animus. To prove adverse possession, defendants must prove that, their possession was unauthorized from very beginning and must plead disclaimer of title from a particular date. (vii) In a case between Madhusudan Mohanta and others (since dead through his LRs.) Vrs. State of Orissa and another reported in 2019 (II) CLR 1001 that, Permissive possession can never become adverse unless hostile animus is expressed at a particular time to the knowledge of the actual owner. (viii) In a case between K.R. Venkatasamy Vrs. Subburathinam Kannammal (died) and another reported in 2026 (1) Civ.C.C. 449 (Madras) that, Every possession is not adverse possession Defendants will not acquire adverse possession by simply remaining in permissive possession for howsoever long it may be. Adverse possession—One who holds possession on behalf of another, does not by mere denial of other’s title, make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of statute of limitation. Adverse possession—Permissive possession would never be adverse to real owner. Adverse possession—Plea of adverse possession is essentially a factual plea and such plea should be pleaded specifically and to be proved by adducing substantive legal evidence. Long possession by itself would not be sufficient to prove adverse possession. Animus possidendi against true owner is also necessary. 23. It is very fundamental in law that, long possession itself cannot mature to title. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between LRs. of Ratilal Tribhovandas Mistri and othersVrs. Navnitlal Rambhai Panchal and others reported in 2024 (2) CCC 123 (Gujrat) that, Merely long possession will not create any right by way of adverse possession. There should be element of definite refusal of right of ownership or title as well as hostile possession. (ii) In a case between Sh.Shishi Ram Vrs. Shri Megh Chand reported in AIR 2013 (H.P.) 65 that, Mere possession however long, does not necessarily mean that, it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means hostile possession, which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. (iii) In a case between Amrit Kaur and others Vrs. Bant Singh and others reported in 2024 (4) Civ.C.C. 476 (P&H) that, Mere possession, may be long without claim of right is not sufficient to establish that, it is adverse to true owner. Possession must be hostile, express or implied in denying the title of true owner. (iv) In a case between Maharaj Singh Yadav Vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2026 (1) CCC 33 (M.P.) that, Mere long possession, without any lawful authority, does not confer any enforceable right so as to grant protection by way of injunction. 24. Likewise, a trespasser has no possession of his own. Its possession is always inures for the benefit of the real owner. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Indore Development Authority Vrs. Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 in Para No.247 that, The Possession of a trespasser always inures for the benefit of the real owner. (ii) In a case between Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others Vrs. Manjit Kaur and others reported in 2019 (4) Civ.C.C. (SC) 1 that, Trespasser’s possession is construed to be on behalf of the owner. (iii) In a case between Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vrs. A. Viswam (dead) by Lrs. reported in (1996) 8 SCC 259 in Para No.12 that, A trespasser cannot claim injunction against the owner. 25. Here, in this suit/appeal at hand, when, the Defendants have claimed their possessory title against the Plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties through adverse possession stating specifically in their pleadings that, their predecessor Gangadhar Mohapatra was residing in the suit properties on the permission of the predecessor of the Plaintiffs i.e. Narayan Palai, as a tenant without paying rent in lieu of looking after the cases of its owner Narayan Palai at Bhadrak Court and when, there is no pleadings and evidence on behalf of the Defendants that, they (Defendants) are possessing the suit properties from a particular date denying the title of the Plaintiffs in the same with their intention to possess the same, as the owners of the same and when, there is no pleadings and evidence on behalf of the Defendants to show that, on which date their so-called hostile possession over the suit properties had ripened/matured to title, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it cannot be held that, the Defendants/Appellants have become able to establish their possessory title over the suit properties extinguishing the title of the Plaintiffs in the same and their possession on the suit properties is lawful. For which, the decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit properties passed by the learned Trial Court in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents against the Defendants/Appellants and the confirmation of the same by the learned 1st Appellate Court cannot be held as erroneous. Therefore, the question of interfering with the same through this 2nd appeal filed by the Appellants (Defendants) does not arise. As such, there is no merit in the 2nd appeal filed by the Appellants (Defendants). The same must fail. 26. In result, the 2nd appeal filed by the Appellants (Defendants) is dismissed on contest against the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 (Plaintiffs), but without cost. The judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.07 of 2019 and confirmation of the same by the learned 1st Appellate Court in R.F.A. No.101 of 2023 are confirmed. (A.C. Behera), Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack 31st of March, 2026/ Binayak Sahoo// Junior Stenographer