JUDGMENT P.K.MISRA, J. — Plaintiffs have filed this appeal against the decision of the trial Court dismissing their suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction. 2. From the undisputed genealogy it appears that one Sadhu Barik had three sons. The three defendants represent the branch of eldest son Sibanath; plaintiffs 1 to 6 represent the branch of the second son Jayi and plaintiff No. 7 Kamala, being the daugh¬ter represents the branch of third son Ninuha. The plaintiffs claim right on the basis of their adverse possession. Plaintiff No.1 claims Lot No.I; plaintiffs 2 to 5 claim Lot No. II; plain¬tiff No. 6 claims Lot No.III and plaintiff No. 7 claims Lot No. IV in Schedule-A. It is alleged that the plaintiffs have been in forcible possession of the disputed land separately as indicated above even during the life time of Sibanath, the predecessor-in-interest of the present defendants. It is claimed that the sons of Sibanath had applied for mutation in their names in Mutation Case No. 224 of 1963-64 where objection was filed on behalf of the present plaintiffs. The Tahsildar initially while allowing the mutation directed that separate possession of the plaintiffs in respect of different lots, as indicated earlier, should be noted. Subsequently, the defendants being apprehensive of the result of field enquiry got the mutation case dropped. However, the plaintiffs filed separate applications for mutation. Those mutation cases were initially allowed, but in appeal filed by the defendants, the cases were remanded for fresh disposal. However, subsequently, the Tahsildar directed the parties to take shelter in the Civil Court. The defendants again preferred Mutation Appeal No.2 of 1973 which was remanded and subsequently the Tahsildar placed the case records before the Charge Officer, Keonjhar, to take action during the Settlement operation. While the matter stood thus, the defendants forcibly cut and removed the unripe paddy forcing the plaintiffs to file the suit. 3. The defendants in their written statement took the plea and that the earlier suit, T.S.No. 5 of 1949/50 had been filed by plaintiff No.1 and predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs 2 to 6 on the ground that the present disputed property as well as the other properties were the joint family properties of Sibanath and his two brothers. However, the said suit was ultimately dis¬missed. However, the said suit was ultimately dis¬missed. The finding in the said suit operates as res judicata as it was found that the present plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest did not have any title or possession over the said land. A proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C., was initiated at the instance of the plaintiffs being numbered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 88/71, but in the said proceeding posses¬sion of the defendants was declared. The other allegations in the plaint relating to acquisition of title by adverse possession were denied. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following Issues : 1. If the suit is maintainable ? 2. If the plaintiffs have cause of action to file the suit ? 3. If the plaintiffs have acquired title over the suit lands by adverse possession ? 4. If the suit is barred by principles of res judicata ? 5. To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled ? While negativing the plea of the defendants regarding res judicata, the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to prove acquisition of title by ad¬verse possession. 5. In this appeal, the only question which arises for con¬sideration is as to whether the plaintiffs had acquired title by adverse possession by the date of filing of the suit. The trial Court discarded the case of the plaintiffs mainly on the ground that the evidence of the plaintiffs had not received any inde¬pendent corroboration and there was discrepancy in the evidence relating to the date from which the plaintiffs remained in posses¬sion. Plaintiff No. 1 was examined as P.W.1 plaintiff No.3 was examined as P.W.2, plaintiff No.6 was examined as P.W.5 and plaintiff No. 7 was examined as P.W.6. Besides, two other persons were examined as P.Ws. 3 and 4 to prove plaintiffs’ possession and an employee of the Settlement Office was examined as P.W.7 to prove certain records relating to Settlement proceedings. On the side of defendants, defendant No. 2 was examined as D.W.1 and another witness was examined as D.W.2. Even though the plaintiffs have not stated specifically in the plaint regarding the date or even the year from which they remained in possession even during the life-time of Sibanath, the predecessor-in-interest of the present defendants. On the side of defendants, defendant No. 2 was examined as D.W.1 and another witness was examined as D.W.2. Even though the plaintiffs have not stated specifically in the plaint regarding the date or even the year from which they remained in possession even during the life-time of Sibanath, the predecessor-in-interest of the present defendants. It is not disputed that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs/their predecesors-in-interest claiming partition over the lands including the present disputed lands was dismissed in the year 1953. In the evidence the plaintiffs claim that they continued to remain in possession in spite of dismissal of their suit. Even though there is some confusion relating to the question as to whether possession was taken in the execution case, the fact remains that the earlier execution case was filed for realisation of the cost and as such, there could not have been any occasion for the defendants in the earlier suit to levy execution for obtaining possession. 6. It is, of course, true that in the earlier suit it was found that the present plaintiffs/their predecessors-in-interest were not in possession. It is contended that such finding was rendered without framing any Issue and as such, the finding is not binding. Even assuming that such finding was binding and the possession was negatived, there is clear evidence on record to indicate that the plaintiffs have remained in possession at least from the year 1963-64, if not earlier. Of course, the plaintiffs and the other two witnesses examined in support of their posses¬sion clearly state that the plaintiffs continued to remain in possession even from 1953. However, the documentary evidence on record adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs in the shape of various Settlement papers clearly point out that the plaintiffs were in possession at least from the year 1963-64. 7. Undisputedly, the present defendants had filed applica¬tion for mutation in the year 1963-64 and in the said mutation proceeding while directing for mutation the names of the defend¬ants, it was specifically directed that the possession of the present plaintiffs should be noted. Even some of the Settlement papers which were produced and proved, indicate that defendant No.1 had signed on the report of the Settlement Officials. Even some of the Settlement papers which were produced and proved, indicate that defendant No.1 had signed on the report of the Settlement Officials. Though defendant No. 2 disclaims any knowledge about such report and order, the evidence on record clearly indicates that during the initial stage of mutation proceeding the possession of the plain¬tiffs had been found. Ultimately, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration and yet, the present defendants filed application for dropping the mutation proceeding initiated by them¬selves, obviously because the defendants were apprehensive that the note of possession in favour of the present plaintiffs may create hurdle in the enjoyment of the property by the defendants. 8. The defendants have claimed that their possession was declared in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. However, no document has been produced to indicate as to whether any such order was passed declaring their possession in respect of any of the disputed properties, The plaintiffs, on the other hand, have stated that there was no proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. relating to the present disputed lands. Thus, the oral evidence of the plaintiffs supported by the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 receives ample corroboration from the documentary evidence on record to show possession of the plaintiffs at least from the year 1963-64, if not earlier. 9. The documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the defend¬ants appears to be every shaky. It is, of course, true that the rent receipts have been filed by the defendants. However, since admittedly the disputed properties were earlier recorded in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, production of rent receipts by the defendants would not outweigh the other overwhelming evidence relating to possession of the plaintiffs. 10. It is to be noticed that after filing the suit, inter¬rogatories were served on the defendants relating to various aspects including possession of the plaintiffs as to certain homestead properties and existence of their residential house on such homestead lands. It is significant to note that the defend¬ants instead of giving any categorical answer either in the affirmative or in the negative have given very vague answers on the ground that the questions were irrelevant. The trial Court has discarded the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 on untenable grounds. It is significant to note that the defend¬ants instead of giving any categorical answer either in the affirmative or in the negative have given very vague answers on the ground that the questions were irrelevant. The trial Court has discarded the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 on untenable grounds. Merely because the father of P.W.3 had deposed in the earlier suit and P.W.3 disclaimed his knowledge about such deposition in the earlier suit, cannot be considered as a ground to discard the evidence of P.W.3. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.4 has been discarded by the trial Court on very flimsy ground. P.Ws. 3 and 4 have categorically corroborated the statement of plaintiffs relating to their possession. The documentary evidence in the shape of various Settlement papers has also corroborated the case of the plaintiffs. Since the present plaintiffs were claiming possession on their own right at least from the year 1963-64, such possession became adverse to the interest of the present defendants. There is no evidence on record to indicate that the possession of the plaintiffs had been effectively interrupted at any point of time and the act of defendants in forcibly removing the unripe paddy in one year must be taken to be a sporadic act of trespass. It is thus quite apparent that by the time of filing the suit, the plaintiffs had already perfected their title by adverse possession. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, differing from the decision of the trial Court, I allow the appeal and decree the suit, There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.