JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiff is the Appellant before this Court against a reversing judgment. The Appellant had filed the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction over the disputed land. 2. The case of the Appellant is that he is the Secretary of an institution called Nigamananda Smruti Mandir and the suit had been filed on behalf of the said institution. Defendants 3. 4 and 5 are the sons of Defendant No. 1 who is the Respondent No. 1 before this Court. The subject-matter of the suit is Ac.0 005 decimals of land having a breadth of 4' and length of 54'. The said disputed land is in Hal plot No. 886 appertaining to Hal Khata No. 33 in Puri town. The institution was established in the year 1946 and the Appellant was one of its founder members. Plot No. 866 to which the suit land appertains previously belonged to Gobardhan Math and in the year 1946 one Banamali Das who was the President of the institution then obtained it on permanent lease on behalf of the institution from Gobardhan Math. Construction of a building on the aforesaid plot was proposed by the institution and accordingly plan was submitted to the Municipality in 1951 for approval. In the said plan the suit land was indicated as a sweeper's passage of the institution. After approval of the plan, the civil construction of the institution was done and since then the disputed land is being used as sweeper's passage; There is a house on the eastern side of the suit land which was purchased by Defendant No. 1 in the year 1969 in the names of Defendants 3, 4 and 5. After such purehase, Defendant No. 1 tried to forcibly encroach upon the suit land for which the suit had been filed. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 being minor sons of Defendant No. 1 did not contest and the guardian ad litem was appointed for them. After attaining majority Defendant No. 3 was noticed, but he did not appear and was set ex parte. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement, but subsequently the name of Defendant No. 2 was deleted and the said written statement was treated as that of only Defendant No. 1. 3. After attaining majority Defendant No. 3 was noticed, but he did not appear and was set ex parte. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement, but subsequently the name of Defendant No. 2 was deleted and the said written statement was treated as that of only Defendant No. 1. 3. Case of Defendant No. 1 is that the Plaintiff is not the owner or representative of the institution and that he has no locus standi to file the suit on behalf of the institution. The suit plot No. 866 comprises an area of Ac.0.481/2 decimals and it is the only plot in Hal Khata No. 33. The suit land is a part of the said plot. Defendants are the owners in possession of plot No. 866 and consequently it has been under the ownership and possession of the Defendants. 4. On consideration of the respective cases of the parties, the trial court framed as many as 12 issues. While answering issue No. 6 the trial court held that the Defendants ate not the owners of the entire suit plot No. 866. Answering issue Nos. 8, 9 and 10 the trial court held that the Plaintiff has title to the suit land and is in possession of the same. On these findings the suit was decreed. 5. Defendant No. 1 challenged the said judgment in appeal before the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge-cum-C J.M., Puri. The findings of the trial court were reversed and the lower appellate court found that both parties failed to substantiate their respective claims of title over the suit land and observed that when the parties claim user of the land as sweeper's passage leading to their respective houses situated on either side of the suit land, it is necessary that the suit land must be kept open and in tact without commission of obstruction of any nature whatsoever thereupon by either party, till the right, title and interest of the rightful owner is declared by the court of competent jurisdiction. 6. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the learned lower appellate court erred in law in not taking into consideration the area of the land conveyed under Ext. 1, while accepting the corrected plot number contained in the deed of clarification, Ext. 6. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the learned lower appellate court erred in law in not taking into consideration the area of the land conveyed under Ext. 1, while accepting the corrected plot number contained in the deed of clarification, Ext. 2, holding that it was admissible in nature; and (2) Whether the learned lower appellate court erred in law in denying to the Plaintiff Appellant the relief for possessory title merely on the ground that he had not been specifically raised the plea of adverse possession though it arrived at the same finding as the trial court that the Defendant-respondent neither had title nor possession over the disputed land? ' 7. Shri R.K. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the only question that is to be decided in the case is whether the lower appellate court was justified in going to the question of adverse possession and giving a finding against the Plaintiff on the basis of that, totalling ignoring that the Plaintiff has in any view of the matter, possessory title over the suit land which is good enough against the entire world except the true owner. The learned Counsel has relied upon the decision reported in ILR 1963 Cutt 482:Gadadhar Sahu v. Karsanbarta Patel; and AIR 1971 Ori 135 : Panchabati Ramachandra v. Satyabhama Devi, in Support of the aforesaid contention. The learned Counsel has further relied upon 1974(1) C.W.R 568: E. Mangulu and Ors. v. Paddili Sriramulu, and submits that on the basis of long possession, the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for eviction against the rank trespassers. Relying on the decision reported in Somnath Burman Vs. Dr. S.P. Raju and Another, the learned Counsel further submits that the person having possessory title can get a declaration that he is the owner of the land and in a suit injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with his possession can be passed. 8. From the contention raised by Shri Mohapatra on behalf of the Appellant it appears that he has confined his case to ground No. 2 on which the Second Appeal has been admitted. From the written statement it appears that the claim of Defendant No. 1 is that plot No. 866 comprises an area of Ac.0.481/2 dec. of land and that he is in possession of the entire plot. From the written statement it appears that the claim of Defendant No. 1 is that plot No. 866 comprises an area of Ac.0.481/2 dec. of land and that he is in possession of the entire plot. If Defendant No.1 is in possession of the entire plot, the question of Plaintiff's possession over a part of it does not arise. From the record it appears that there is no material available to indicate the exact area of plot No. 866. Ext. E is the certified copy of the draft R O.R. issued during present settlement operation in respect of the area possessed by the Plaintiff. Ext. F is the certified copy of the draft R.O.R. issued during the settlement operation in respect of the area possessed by the Defendant. Ext. E indicates that the Plaintiff possesses Ac. 0.126 dec. of land appertaining to suit plot No. 866, whereas Ext. F indicates that the Defendant possesses Ac. 0.065 d. of land appertaining to suit plot No. 866. If these documents are accepted, then it is seen that the total area of plot No. 866 comes to Ac. 0.191 dec. Therefore, the contention of Defendant No. 1 that plot No: 866 comprises of only Ac. 0.481/2 dec. is based on no material. A survey knowing commissioner was deputed by the trial court to measure and demarcate the suit land and to find out whether it appertains to the area possessed by the Plaintiff or to the area possessed by the Defendants. The Commissioner in his report, Ext. 8 has stated that the suit land is part of the area which is possessed by the Plaintiff and that it is not a part of the area which is under possession of the defandants. Though the Defendants' claim was with regard to Ac. 0 048.5 decimals of land, the Commissioner reported that Defendant No. 1 was in possession of Ac. 0.63 dec. of land. Taking advantage of the said report Defendant No. 1' s contention was that though he had actually purchased Ac. 0.48.5 decimals of land, it is. Ac. 0017 dec. in excess of the land purchased by him and a part of the same is the disputed land. However, in his deposition it is specifically admitted that he has no possession over the disputed land. On the other hand, Ext. 0.48.5 decimals of land, it is. Ac. 0017 dec. in excess of the land purchased by him and a part of the same is the disputed land. However, in his deposition it is specifically admitted that he has no possession over the disputed land. On the other hand, Ext. 1 which is a permanent lease executed by Gobardhan Matha in favour of Banamali Das in his personal capacity indicates that Ac. 0.125 dec. of land situated in plot No. 853 appertaining to Khata No. 33 was leased out in favour of Banamali Das. The said lease deed was executed in 1946. Ext. 6 is a registered deed of relinquishment of the year 1949 executed by Banamali Das in favour of an organisation called, 'Nilachal Saraswata Sangha' and this deed was in respect of the land covered under Ext.1. Ext. 7 is a gift deed dated 8-9-61 executed by said Banamali Das in favour of Srimat Swami Nigamanda Paramahansadev installed in Nigmananda Smritimandir, and the said document was executed on behalf Nilachala Saraswata Sangha and on the basis of the said document, the Plaintiff claims as the owner of the suit land. Though in Ext. 1 the plot No. 853 was mentioned, by a subsequent unregistered deed of correction, Ext. 2, the plot No. 853 was connected as 866'. This misdescription of the plot number has been accepted by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. It appears that the lower appellate court proceeded on the footing that the suit land measuring 5 dec. is a sweeper's passage lying in between the Defendants' house on the east and Plaintiff's institution on the west and that the Plaintiff does not claim title by adverse possession or by any other mode, save and except by the registered lease deed dated 9-3-1946, Ext. 1 which extends to an area of Ac. 0.125 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 866 But the Plaintiff has not said as to how he came into possession over the disputed land extending to an area of Ac. 0 05 dec. of land and in absence of plea of adverse possession the prayer of the Plaintiff cannot be allowed. 0.125 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 866 But the Plaintiff has not said as to how he came into possession over the disputed land extending to an area of Ac. 0 05 dec. of land and in absence of plea of adverse possession the prayer of the Plaintiff cannot be allowed. It appears from the evidence available on record that the witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff have specifically stated that the disputed land is being used as it sweeper's passage by the Plaintiff institution As a matter of fact the lower appellate court has accepted that the witnesses have said about possession of the Plaintiff over the disputed land, but ultimately observed that no amount of evidence of possession flowing ftom the mouth of witnesses other than the Plaintiff shall be deemed relevant and be accepted in the matter of recording a finding on the question of possession. In view of the specific plea of the Plaintiff that the institution is in possession of the said disputed land and the same is being used as a sweeper's passage, and the evidence of witnesses with regard to such possession, in my view the lower appellate court was not justified in observing that no amount of evidence of possession flowing from the mouth of witnesses other than the Plaintiff shall be relevant. From the decisions reported in I.L.R 1963 Cutt. 482 (supra) and A.I.R 1971 Ori 135 (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for Appellant, it is clear that a person in possession of the land without title also has an interest in the property which is heritable and good against all the world except the true owner. From the materials available on record it appears that the Plaintiff is in possession of the suit land much before the Defendants came into possession of their part of the property and therefore, there is no difficulty in declaring the possession of the Plaintiff over the disputed land. 9. In view of discussion made above, the Second Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court are set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court are confirmed. Second appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed