JUDGMENT : Narasimham, J. - This is a Plaintiff's appeal against the reversing judgment of the Additional District Judge of Ganjam setting aside the judgment and decree of the Munsif of Aska and dismissing the Plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1 for an anticipated trespass. 2. The disputed property consists of about 8.82 acres in a raitwari village known as Babanpur in Aska taluk under Patta No. 125. The Plaintiff is the natural son of one Jagannath Naik. But he was given in adoption to Jagannath's brother Raghu prior to 1918. Defendants 2 to 6 are the remaining five sons of the said Jagannath Naik. The Plaintiff alleged that the disputed property originally belonged to his adoptive father Raghu) that after his death it devolved on the Plaintiff and that neither his natural father Jagannath nor his other sons (Defendants 2 to 6) had any interest in the same. Defendant No. 1 obtained a money decree against Jagannath Naik in O.S. No. 378 of 1937 and inexecution of that decree in E.P. No. 10 of 1944 he attached the disputed property on the ground that it belonged to Defendants 2 to 6 (Jagannath having died in the meantime sold it and in due course took delivery of possession on 24-5-41. The Plaintiff, however, alleged that actual delivery of possession never too place and that be sale by the executing Court would not affect his title inasmuch as the judgment-debtor's family (Defendants 2 to 6) had no interest in the disputed property. The Plaintiff) however, anticipated that armed with court sale and delivery of possession Defendant No. 1 may attempt to interfere with the Plaintiff's possession and hence he brought the suit for permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1 for anticipated trespass. 3. Defendant No. 1's contention was that the disputed proper by fell to the share of Jagannath in the joint family partition of 1918 and that partition was recognised in a Partition suit (O.S. No. 80 of 1928) to which all the co-sharers of Jagannath were 1 parties and that since then Jagannath and his sons (Defendants 2 to 6) were in possession of the same). He, therefore, urged that the disputed property was validly sold in execution of the money decree obtained against Jagannath and he duly obtained delivery of possession. He, therefore, urged that the disputed property was validly sold in execution of the money decree obtained against Jagannath and he duly obtained delivery of possession. The Plaintiff, according to him, had neither title nor possession over the disputed proper by. Defendants 2 to 6, however, practically supported the Plaintiff's case. 4. The trial Court held that the Plaintiff had no title to the disputed proper by in as much as in 1918 a private partition bid been effected between Jagannath on the one hand and his other co-sharers on the other by an award (Ext. A) in which eighteen acres of land under patta No. 125 (including the disputed land) were specially allotted to Jagannath. This private partition was challenged by another co-sharer of Jagannath in a partition suit, (O.S. No. 30 of 1928) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur. But that Court confirmed the award by its judgment dated 30-9-1929. (Ex B) to which the Plaintiff, Jagannath and other co-sharers were all parties. In fact the Plaintiff himself in his deposition in that suit (Ext. D) clearly admitted that the award of 1918 was valid that each of the co-sharers was in separate possession of the properties allotted to him in that award and that hey were paying their is separately to the Government. As the disputed property admittedly fell to the share of Jagannath in the award there was no doubt of the fact that the Plaintiff had no title to the same. But the trial Court thought that Plaintiff had established his title by adverse possession after the decision of the Subordinate Judge in 1929 and that consequently the Court sale obtained by Defendant No. 1 against Defendants 2 to 6 would not affect the Plaintiff's title. The lower appellate Court, however, held that the evidence adduced on the Plaintiff's side to prove adverse possession was qui be inconclusive and that consequently the title which originally vested with Jagannath and his sons (Defendant 2 to 6) was not extinguished. 5. The fact that the Plaintiff had no title to the disputed property till 1929 was rightly no challenged before me by Mr. Acharya on behalf of the Appellant The award of 1918 (Ext. A), the deposition of the Plaintiff himself in O.S. No. 30 of 1928 (Ext. D.) and the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur dated 30-9-29 (Ext. The fact that the Plaintiff had no title to the disputed property till 1929 was rightly no challenged before me by Mr. Acharya on behalf of the Appellant The award of 1918 (Ext. A), the deposition of the Plaintiff himself in O.S. No. 30 of 1928 (Ext. D.) and the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur dated 30-9-29 (Ext. B) leave no room for doubt that the disputed property was allotted to Jagannath's branch at the time of the private partition of the joint family is 1918 and that since then it continued in possession of that branch and the said partition was also confirmed in the partition Emit of 1928 (Ext. B). Hence, the limited question for consideration is whether the Plaintiff acquired this to the disputed property by adverse possession against Jagannath ana his other sons from 1929 till the date of the institution of the Suit (24-9-46). The Plaintiff has, however, not stated clearly as to how he first obtained possession of the disputed property from Jagannath's branch. On the other hand, in his disposition before the trial Court he had pub for war d an alternative case which would clearly negative the plea of adverse possession. There he stated that Jagannath was allotted eighteen acres of land under Patta No. 125 as a special concession because be had six sons and that subsequent to the passing of the award (Ext. A) Jagannath made a private partition by which he gave ten acres under the same Patta including the disputed property to the Plaintiff and kept the remaining eight acres for himself and his other Sons. This story of subsequent partition between Jagannath and the Plaintiff was not supported by any documentary evidence and was rightly disbelieved by the trial Court and not pressed before me. It is true that the Plaintiff is also one of the natural sons of Jagannath but he had been given away in adoption prior to 1918 to Jagannath's brother Raghu and in the award of 1918 the Plaintiff was allotted lit specific share of the joint family property as the son of Raghu. Consequently, it seems unlikely that Jagannath would subsequently give away ten acres out of Patta. No 125 to the Plaintiff unless there were special reasons for him to choose the Plaintiff in preference to his other sons (Defendants 2 to 6) who were then joint with him. Consequently, it seems unlikely that Jagannath would subsequently give away ten acres out of Patta. No 125 to the Plaintiff unless there were special reasons for him to choose the Plaintiff in preference to his other sons (Defendants 2 to 6) who were then joint with him. At any rate, there is absolutely no evidence of such a partition apart from the bare statement of the Plaintiff. 6. Thus when it is clearly established that the Plaintiff had no title to the disputed property till 1929, any claim of title by adverse possession subsequent to that date must be established by clear and cogent evidence. Moreover as emphasised by the Privy Council in Moothavar v. Kunharan Katty AIR 1922 P.C. 181 adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor. In other words, the Plaintiff must show that he was in possession of the whole of the disputed property for a continuous period of twelve years in assertion of his own rights to the know ledge (either actual or constructive) of Jagannath and his other sons. It will not suffice for him merely to throw doubt on Jagannath's possession of a portion of the disputed property during the period from 1929 till 1940 or so. 7. The oral evidence adduced by the Plaintiff to prove adverse possession is practically worthless. His testimony stands uncorroborated. None of his other witnesses has supported his statement to the effect that he was in possession of the disputed property all along. The village Karanam or Karji has not been examined to support his evidence on this point. Though some of the co-villagers were examined by the Plaintiff to prove some other facts they were not questioned as to whether they have personal knowledge of the Plaintiff's exclusive possession of the disputed property. The only witness to support the Plaintiffs possession is Respondent No. 6. But as rightly pointed out by the lower appellate Court, his evidence is Dot disinterested because he has been throughout supporting the Plaintiff. When the property has passed away to a third party (Defendant No. 1) it is very easy for Defendants 2 to 6 to come forward and support he Plaintiff's case in the hope that a portion of the property may, at any rate, be salvaged for the family. 8. When the property has passed away to a third party (Defendant No. 1) it is very easy for Defendants 2 to 6 to come forward and support he Plaintiff's case in the hope that a portion of the property may, at any rate, be salvaged for the family. 8. The documentary evidence of possession is quite inconclusive. In appreciating this piece of evidence the Court should not lose eight of the fact that the patta originally stead in the name of Raghu long before the partition amongst the various co-sharers in 1918. Hence if after the partition of 1918 the co-sharers did not bother to get separate pattas in their names in accordance with the award it would not necessarily show that there was no partition in fact or else that the co-sharers were not in possession of their properties separately allotted to them. It is an admitted fact that is patta. No. 125 the Plaintiff is also recorded as one of the pattadars in the revenue-records of the village. Consequently, his name is bound to appear in all revenue papers such as Cist receipts, Adengal etc. Hence merely because some of the Cist receipts after 1929 (Ext. 10 series) or Adengal entries (Ext. K series) contain the name of the Plaintiff it will not be proper to hold that the Plaintiff was actually in possession of all the disputed properties. It was urged that the Gist receipts (Ext. 10. series) showed that in respect of patta No. 125 the Plaintiff paid more than Rs. 25/- per annum as Cist to the Government from 1980 to 1934 and that this payment alone was sufficient to disprove the allotment of whole of the patta No. 125 to Jagannath in the partition of 1918. I am, however, unable to appreciate this argument. Since the Plaintiff's name was recorded as one of pattadrs, some of the receipts would be in his name even though actual possession may remain with Jagannath and his co-sharers. As Defendants 2 to 6 are now colluding with the Plaintiff it was not difficult for the latter to obtain possession of the Cist receipts and file them in Court. His clear admission in his deposition (Ext. As Defendants 2 to 6 are now colluding with the Plaintiff it was not difficult for the latter to obtain possession of the Cist receipts and file them in Court. His clear admission in his deposition (Ext. D) to the effect that after the award of 1918 the co-sharers were in separate possession of the properties allotted to them is itself sufficient to show that he was never in possession of the disputed property which admittedly fell to the share of Jagannath by that award. His bare statement on oath now to the effect carry any conviction) especially when he has not clearly stated as to how after 1929 Jagannath allowed him to take possession of the disputed property. The same remarks apply to the Adnagal entries (Ext. K. series). So long as the Plaintiff's Dame was recorded as one of the pattadars in respect of patta No. 125 the 1000.1 revenue officials were bound to show him as one of the persons in possession of the lands covered by the patta. But these entries do not show which particular plot under the patta was in the-possession of the Plaintiff. To establish title by adverse possession the Plaintiff must prove his possession in respect of everyone of the plots comprising the disputed property and a vague entry in the Adnagal to the effect that he was one of the parsons in possession in respect of patta. No. 125 would not suffice. 9. The other documents proved by the Plaintiff are equally inconclusive. For instance, Ext.2-B is a deed of exchange between 'be Plaintiff on the one hand and the Government on the other by which a small portion of survey No. 97 appertaining to patta No. 125 was said to have been given up by 'he Plaintiff in favour of the Government on 10-12-1924. From this transaction it was argued that the Plaintiff must have been in possession of a portion of patta No. 15 and that to that extent the award of 1918 was not correct. This argument however does not help anybody because as already pointed out, in the Plaintiff's deposition (Ext. D) dated 16-7-1929 before the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur in Order 8. No. 30 of 1928 he was asserting that the parties were in possession of the properties as allotted to them in the award of 1918. This argument however does not help anybody because as already pointed out, in the Plaintiff's deposition (Ext. D) dated 16-7-1929 before the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur in Order 8. No. 30 of 1928 he was asserting that the parties were in possession of the properties as allotted to them in the award of 1918. It may be that in the deed of exchange (Ext 2-b) dated 10-12-24 the Plaintiff's signature was obtained by the revenue authorities because he was one the recorded pattadars. Ext. 3 series are security bonds executed by the Plaintiff in 1930 to 1934 in favour of the Government while taking taccavi loans. In those bonds some of the survey nos of patta No. 125 were shown as mortgaged by the Plaintiff with the Government. On the basis of these documents it was urged that if the Plaintiff was not in possession of those survey Nos. Government would not have accepted the security bonds (Ext. 3 series) from him and given him taccavi loans. The fact that elaborate enquiries are generally made by he local revenue officials before accepting such security bond was urged as a circumstance to show that the Plaintiff must have been in actual possession of the survey Nos. described in those bonds. This argument, however, is quite unconvincing. The Karanam or the Kari of the village who made inquiries and found the Plaintiff to be in possession of the survey Nos. covered by the bonds was not examined as a witness on this point. Consequently, even if in 1930 to 1934 he made a report to the Government in favour of the Plaintiff's possession it would be somewhat in the nature of hearsay evidence. Moreover, in view of the presence of the Plaintiff's name in the patta as one of the pattadars there is nothing improbable in the Government insisting on his executing the bonds even though actual possession may be with his co-sharers. No conclusive inference of the Plaintiff's exclusive possession as against Jagannath and his other sons of the survey Nos. described in Ext. 3 series can be made. 10. Exts. 7 and 7-a are notices of attachment in O.S. No. 989 of 1940 in the file of the Munsif of Aska. In these, some of the survey Nos. of patta No. 125 were shown as the property of the Plaintiff. described in Ext. 3 series can be made. 10. Exts. 7 and 7-a are notices of attachment in O.S. No. 989 of 1940 in the file of the Munsif of Aska. In these, some of the survey Nos. of patta No. 125 were shown as the property of the Plaintiff. The decree-holder was one Sri K.C. Mohapatra, then an advocate of Berhampur, and it was urged that the fact that this property was shown in the name of the Plaintiff in his execution case and sale proclamations were issued at the spot would support the Plaintiff's story of possession. This argument also is quite unsound. There is no clear evidence to show that Defendants 2 to 6 were made aware of the fact that some of the disputed property were being attached as the property of the Plaintiff. Merely because a creditor of the Plaintiff attached the property saying that it belonged to the Plaintiff it cannot be held that Defendants 2 to 6 must have been aware of the same and that consequently it would be evidence of adverse possession as against them. Moreover, as already pointed out by the lower appellate Court, in the attachment notices the Plaintiff was shown as a co-sharer in respect of only eight annas share of the plots) whereas his case was that he was in possession of the whole of the disputed property. Similarly, Ext. 8 which is a copy of the sale proclamation in O.S. No. 181 1934 issued ab the instance of a third party creditor in which the Plaintiff was shown as owner of 9 portion of the disputed property cannot be a piece of evidence as against Defendants 2 to 6. 11. Ext. 2-c is a sale-deed executed by the Plaintiff in favour of Defendant No. 2 in 1929 conveying survey plot No. 5l4/8 in addition to some other plots to the latter. That survey no is part of patta No. 125 which had been allotted to Jagannath and his other sons in the award of 1918. It was urged that unless the Plaintiff had title to that survey no Defendant No. 2 would not have accepted the sale-deed from him in respect of that plot inasmuch as by the award and the subsequent decree that plot had then to the share of Defendant No. 2's father Jagannath. It was urged that unless the Plaintiff had title to that survey no Defendant No. 2 would not have accepted the sale-deed from him in respect of that plot inasmuch as by the award and the subsequent decree that plot had then to the share of Defendant No. 2's father Jagannath. This argument, however, does not help the Plaintiff in establishing adverse possession in respect of the disputed property. Survey No. 514/8 which is covered by that sale-deed is not now claimed by the Plaintiff. It will not suffice for him merely to throw some doubt about the title of Jagannath and his other sons in respect of some of the plots allowed to them in the award of 1918. He must establish open and continuous possession of everyone of the disputed plots to the knowledge of Jagannath and his other sons. 12. It is unnecessary for me to discuss the other documents cited by the trial Court. These have been carefully considered by the lower appellate Court and I agree that these are quite inconclusive. The Plaintiff has totally failed to establish title by adverse possession and the suit was rightly dismissed by the lower appellate Court. 13. I would, therefore, affirm the judgment of the lower appellate Court and dismiss the appeal with costs. Final Result : Dismissed