JUDGMENT : Pradipta Ray, J. - The Respondents as Plaintiffs filed Title suit No. 25 of 1982 of the court of Subordinate Judge, Sundargarh (now Civil Judge. Senior Division) for declaration of their right, title and interest in the land described in Scheduled 'A', 'B' and 'C' to the plaint and for delivery of possession thereof through Court. 2. The case of the Plaintiffs inter alia is: Banshidhar Dhrua, father of Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 orally purchased the.lands described in Schedule 'B' to the plaint from original owner Sricharan Majhi for a consideration of Rs. 500/- through his mother guardian. Urmila Dei on October 25, 1958. By virtue of an unregistered sale deed.dated May 17, 1960 Banshidhar Purchased from Sricharan Majhi and his mother Urmila Dei, the lands described in Schedule 'A' to the plaint. Subsequently by 11 registered sale deed dated April 19,1962 the said oral sale was confirmed and regularised. Since such purchases said Banshidhar was in possession of the said lands and upon due enquiry the said lands were settled with Banshidhar in the Hal Major Settlement. The land described in Schedule 'C' to the plaint was an Anabadi land. After he had settled in village Laikera Banshidhar reclaimed the said Anabadi land in 1956. Accordingly io the Major Settlement the said reclaimed land was settled with Banshidhar. During Hal Settlement, Defendant Appellant No. 1 and his father managed to record a note of possession in favour of Subran Majhi in respect of 'A' Schedule land. Taking advantage of that note of possession Brundaban, Defendant No. 1 filed a criminal case being ICC No. 80/78 in the court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sundargarh u/s 379, I.P. C. for removal of paddy from 'A' Schedule land. The said criminal case ended in acquittal of the Plaintiff and his labourers. In 1978 Defendants damaged the germinated paddy on the Plaintiffs' plot No. 2571 out of 'B' Schedule lands. The Plaintiffs initiated a proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P.C. In the said proceeding possession of the Defendants was found. In view of the confusion Plaintiff-respondents filed the suit for.getting appropriate declaration from civil court. 3. Defendant-appellants contested the suit by filing a joint written statement. Defence case, inter alia, is; Defendants have been all along in possession of Hal Plot Nos. 2511 and 2571 appertaining to Hal Khata No. 121 of village Laikera. Sricharan Majhi never sold any land to Banshidhar Dhrua. 3. Defendant-appellants contested the suit by filing a joint written statement. Defence case, inter alia, is; Defendants have been all along in possession of Hal Plot Nos. 2511 and 2571 appertaining to Hal Khata No. 121 of village Laikera. Sricharan Majhi never sold any land to Banshidhar Dhrua. In 1960 Sricharan was a minor and in fact: he died as a minor. Urmila, mother Sricharan, married for the second time, severed all her connections from the family of her first husband and 'was not the guardian of Sricharan at the relevant point of time. The sale deed from Urmila was obtained fraudulently without any consideration and in any event she has no right to sell the lands particularly in absence of any legal necessity. The parties are Scheduled Tribes covered by Mitakshar Hindu Law under which a widow had no power to alienate her husband's property. Sale, if any, by Urmila was invalid and inoperative in the eye of law. Plaintiff No. 1 and.his father some how obtained Parcha by exercising influence over the settlement authorities although they were never in possession of Hal Plot No. 2571 appertaining to Hal Khata No. 121, in the current settlent note of possession of Subrana Majhi, father of Defendants 1 to 4 was correctly noted. The Defendants have been in possession of Plot No. 2511 of Schedule 'A' and Plot No. 2571 of Schedule 'B' for more than 30 years and they perfected their title over the same by way of adverse possession by the time the suit was instituted. Regarding plot Nos. 2546 of 'B' Schedule land and Plot No. 2547 of 'C' Schedule land there was no dispute between the parties and the.said plots were unnecessarily included in the suit. 4. By judgment and decree dated January 30. 1985 the Subordinate Judge, Sandargarh decreed the suit. The Trial Court held that Urmila was legally competent to execute the sale deeds dated May 7, 1960 and April 19, 1962. Although trial court did not accept die story of oral purchase dated October 25, 1958, it declared the Plaintiffs title in the said properties on the ground of continuous uninterrupted possession since 1958. 5. Defendants filed Title Appeal No. 4 of 1985 of the Court of District Judge, Suridargarh. By judgment and decree dated May 16, 1986 the District Judge dismissed the appeal. 5. Defendants filed Title Appeal No. 4 of 1985 of the Court of District Judge, Suridargarh. By judgment and decree dated May 16, 1986 the District Judge dismissed the appeal. The Defendants have preferred this Second Appeal against the afore said concurrent judgments and decrees. 6. Learned Advocate for the Appellants has mainly argued that none of the courts below considered the question of title regarding Lands described in Schedule 'C' to the plaint, but decreed the suit in respect of the entire suit property including 'c' Schedule land. The said submission, however, has no substance. Schedule 'C' to the plaint contains only Plot No. 2547 in Hal Khata No. 121 of village Laikera. In para 8 of the written statement the Defendants expressly stated that with regard to Plot No. 2546 of 'B' Schedule land and Plot No. 2547 of 'C' Schedule land, there is no dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. It appears from the written statement that the Defendants disputed the Plaintiffs' claim regarding Plot No. 2511 of Schedule 'A' and Plot No. 2571 of Schedule 'B'. As the Defendants expressly admitted the claim of the Plaintiffs in the lands described in Schedule 'C' to the plaint, there was no necessity of framing any separate issue or any discussion regarding the same. 7. Both the courts below' have found that at the time of execution of sale deeds dated May 7, 1960 and April 19, 1962 Urmila was acting as the guardian of Sricharan, a minor and she sold the properties covered by the said sale deeds for the legal necessity of educating her minor son. All the relevant materials on record have been considered by the courts below and as such there is no scope for interference with the, said findings of fact. 8. Regarding 'A' Schedule property both the sides claimed title on the basis of possession. The case as sought to be made out by the Defendants during trial was never pleaded in the written statement. A party cannot be permitted to put forward, a case without a foundation in the pleading. Both the courts below have believed the uninterrupted continuous possession of the Plaintiff-respondents in 'A' Schedule land. In Second Appeal this Court is not in a position to reappraise the evidence and interfere with the concurrent finding regarding adverse possession. 9. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal fails and is dismissed. Both the courts below have believed the uninterrupted continuous possession of the Plaintiff-respondents in 'A' Schedule land. In Second Appeal this Court is not in a position to reappraise the evidence and interfere with the concurrent finding regarding adverse possession. 9. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed