JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - Plaintiffs are the Appellants. They have preferred this appeal against the decision dated 28-11-1964 of Sri K.C. Rath, additional Subordinate judge and Tribunal, Puri, passed the Title Appeal No. 22/47 of 1964. 2. The suit-property is a homestead land appertaining to plot No. 622 measuring Ac-030 decimals in Khata No. 120/630 of Markandeswar Sahi in the town of Puri with a house thereon. This property belongs to Lord Jagannath who is Plaintiff-1 and of whom Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the Marfatdars. This title of the Plaintiff is admitted by the Defendants. 3. Plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit-property and for declaration that the Defendant is a monthly tenant under them. They have also prayed for realisation of arrears of rent for past three years along with damages amounting to Rs. 60/-. Their case is that one Jagu Pal took lease of the suit property for five years by executing a registered Kabala, Ext. 2, dated 6-3-1911 in favour of the ancestor of the Plaintiff, viz., Krushna Chandra Gochhikar. On termination of the lease, no attempt was made on either side for execution of a fresh lease and the lease continued to remain as a monthly tenant thereafter. This Jagu Pal sold his monthly tenancy rights to the mother of the Defendant, Malati Bewa, who like her vendor continued to occupy the suit-house as a monthly tenant under the Plaintiff. She defaulted to pay rent and so Krushna Chandra Gochhikar, ancestor of the Plaintiff, threatened to file a suit for ejectment against her. Malati, the mother of the Defendant, entered into a compromise with Krushna Chandra Gochhikar, and agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 180 for the suit-house and continued to pay the same thereafter. After Malati's death, the Defendant also continued to pay rent. He, however, suspended payment of rent for the last three years despite demand of the Plaintiff and set up a hostile title to the suit property against the Plaintiff. This led the Plaintiff to file the present suit for declaration of their proprietary interest in the suit property together with the declaration that the Defendant is a tenant at will under them and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. 4. The Defendant denied monthly tenancy, and claimed occupancy right in the suit land. This led the Plaintiff to file the present suit for declaration of their proprietary interest in the suit property together with the declaration that the Defendant is a tenant at will under them and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. 4. The Defendant denied monthly tenancy, and claimed occupancy right in the suit land. According to him this property was recorded in the name of Chandra Barik as occupancy raiyat in respect thereof in the Provincial settlement record of rights. One Somanath purchased the occupancy right of Chandra Barik in the suit property in an auction sale, and came into possession of the same. Later on Somanath sold the suit-property to Jagu Pal by a registered sale-deed since when the vendee was in possession as an occupancy raiyat till his death. Thereafter his daughter, Radhamani Ballika and Chandra Bewa sold away the same to the mother of the Defendant by a registered sale-deed dated 5.8.1923 and also delivered possession thereof. He denies Plaintiff's averment that Malati and her predecessor-in-interest were monthly tenants under the Plaintiff. In the alternative the Defendant contends that he has prescribed his right of occupancy in the suit-property, and accordingly the suit must fail. 5. The trial Court dismissed the Plaintiff's suit on a finding that though the Plaintiff proprietary interest has been admitted, they have failed to prove that the Defendant is a tenant-at-will under him, and that the Defendant has acquired occupancy right in the suit-property. He held that the Defendant's occupancy right has been acquired either by his mother's purchase in the year 1923 or he has acquired the same by 12 years' adverse possession. 6. The lower appellate Court also concurred with the finding of the trial Court that the Plaintiffs are the proprietors of the suit property and that the Plaintiffs' theory of monthly tenancy is false and concocted. He found that there is no evidence worth the name proving Plaintiffs' Khas possession over the suit-property at any time and the same was all along in possession of tenants, including Somanath and Jagu Pal. He also found that the Defendant has constructed two rooms after getting approval of plan of the Municipality under Ext. D., and finding that the Defendant has been occupying the suit land for more than 12 years, held that he has acquired occupancy right by adverse possession. 7. He also found that the Defendant has constructed two rooms after getting approval of plan of the Municipality under Ext. D., and finding that the Defendant has been occupying the suit land for more than 12 years, held that he has acquired occupancy right by adverse possession. 7. The concurrent finding that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the Defendant was a monthly tenant under them is beyond assail on any legal ground, but the conclusion of the lower appellate Court that the Defendant has acquired occupancy right by adverse possession is legally untenable. Occupancy status or right cannot he acquired by adverse possession: Vide AIR 1956 S.C. 805. The lower appellate Court has, of course, recorded a finding that the Defendant has acquired occupancy status otherwise than by adverse possession, but he appears to be doubtful as to the correct mode of acquisition of this right by the Defendant. He appears to be hesitant about it. Now that in law it is impossible to acquire occupancy status by adverse possession the finding is shaken. But it appears to me that despite all these findings against the Plaintiffs, they are nevertheless entitled to one relief claimed in the suit, viz., and declaration of right, title and interest. The entire suit, therefore, is not liable to be dismissed. The Plaintiffs are, accordingly, entitled to the declaration that they are the proprietors, of the suit-property. But the suit must dismissed so far as the prayer for declaration that the Defendant is a monthly tenant and for realisation of Re. 60/- by way of arrears of rent and damage claimed on the basis of monthly tenancy is concerned. The finding of the lower appellate Court that the Defendant is an occupancy tenant is also set aside, and the question is left open. It is also made clear that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the Defendant is a house-tenant on monthly basis under them. 8. It is permissible for a Plaintiff who has claimed declaration of title and for some consequential reliefs to get a decree for declaration only, even though the consequential reliefs are negatived, Vide ILR 18 Cal, 82. In the result, the suit is partly decreed, viz., the Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of their proprietary right, title and interest in the suit property. In the result, the suit is partly decreed, viz., the Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of their proprietary right, title and interest in the suit property. But the suit fails in so far as the declaration that the Defendant is a monthly tenant and for realisation of arrears of rent and damages amounting to Rs. 60/- is concerned. Hence this appeal is partly allowed and there shall be no order for costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed