JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The Defendants are the Appellants before this Court against a judgment of the lower appellate Court allowing the appeal in the part and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The Respondent has also filed the cross-appeal challenging that portion of the judgment of the lower appellate Court in which the decree of the trial Court has been confirmed. 2. The Respondent has filed the suit for declaration, that the Defendants-Appellants have got no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties described in Schedule 'A' and 'B' and for declaration that the Plaintiff has got exclusive possession over the same. A further prayer was also made to declare that the settlement entries in the R.O.R. published in 1977 relating to occupancy holding Nos. 297 and 298 describing the Defendants as Sikimi tenants' in respect of holding No. 298 and in forcible occupation of holding No. 297 are erroneous, illegal and for correction of the said entries deleting the names of the Defendants. A prayer was also made for permanent injunction. 3. The case of the Plaintiff is that he is a occupancy raiyat and in exclusive possession of the suit properties described in schedule 'A' and 'B' of the plaint and the predecessors-in-interest of the Defendants were Sikimi tenants in respect of the suit properties previously. In view of the fact that the predecessors-in-interest of the Defendants were earlier Sikimi tenants in respect of the suit properties, they have been recorded as Sikimi raiyats in the settlement record of the year 1928. Their rights got extinguished after their death and thereafter the Defendants never remained in possession over the same. The Defendants were never in forcible possession in respect of suit holding No. 297 under schedule 'B' of the plaint and their claim before the settlement authorities was that they were bhag-tenants and were in possession of the same in such capacity. Therefore, allegations made in the plaint are that the Plaintiff was working out side and was not in a position to come to his village frequently and taking advantage of his absence the Defendants managed to get the settlement record in their name as Sikimi under raiyats in respect to suit holding No. 298 and also obtained the note of forcible possession in respect of holding No. 297. When the Plaintiff came to know about the same he objected and accordingly the settlement authorities passed orders for cancellation of the said entries. However, such orders of cancellation were not carried out and the final R.O.R. was published. Therefore, the suit was filed. 4. Defendant 1 to 4 filed written statement stating that the Plaintiff is the occupancy raiyat in respect of the suit properties and that their predecessors were the Sikimi tenants under him. After death of the predecessors, the Defendants were allowed to continue as bhag-tenants in respect of the suit properties and the Plaintiff was collecting Raj-bhag from them without granting any receipt to that effect as per the local practice. Since the predecessors of the Defendants were continuing in respect of the suit properties as Sikimi tenants and thereafter the Defendants continued as bhag-tenants they have rightly been recorded as Sikimi tenants. The suit was filed because the Plaintiff demanded half produce of the Raj-bhag and the Defendant did not agree to the demand. A further objection was raised by the Defendants that as they are bhag-tenants in respect of the suit-properties and the suit is not maintainable under the Orissa Land Reforms Act. 5. The trial Court on consideration of the pleadings framed four issues and issue No. 2 relates to the jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining the suit. Since the Defendants have claimed to be the bhag-tenants under the Plaintiff in respect of the suit properties, the trial Court took up the said issue first to find out as to whether he had jurisdiction in view of the bar under the Orissa Land Reforms Act. On consideration of the evidence, the trial Court found that the Defendants are not bhag-tenants in respect of plot Nos. 550, 387 and 1562 and having come to such a finding also held that the suit is maintainable. With regard to the issue relating to possession, the trial Court found that in respect of plot Nos. 386, 1500, 1563 and 1517 the Defendants were continuing as bhag-tenants and therefore the Plaintiff was not entitled for declaration of possession in respect of the same. So far as plot No. 550, 387 and 1562 are concerned, the trial Court found that the Defendants are in forcible possession and. the settlement records rightly indicated such forcible possession. 386, 1500, 1563 and 1517 the Defendants were continuing as bhag-tenants and therefore the Plaintiff was not entitled for declaration of possession in respect of the same. So far as plot No. 550, 387 and 1562 are concerned, the trial Court found that the Defendants are in forcible possession and. the settlement records rightly indicated such forcible possession. The Plaintiff having not prayed for recovery possession, the trial Court dismissed the suit even if he found that the Defendants are not bhag-tenants in respect of plot Nos. 550, 387 and 1562 and were in forcible possession thereof. 6. In appeal carried by the Plaintiff-Respondent, the lower appellate Court agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the Defendants were not bhag-tenants in respect of the aforesaid three plots namely, 550. 387 and 1562 and also agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the Defendants were in forcible possession of the aforesaid three plots. However, the lower appellate Court taking into consideration the fact that there was general prayer in the plaint to pass any other order as deem just and proper and that the Plaintiff had paid the ad valorem Court fee allowed the appeal in part and directed delivery of possession so far as the aforesaid three plots are concerned and confirmed the finding of the trial Court so far as other plots are concerned. 7. At the time of admission of the appeal, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law as enumerated in ground Nos. 'B', 'C' and 'D' of the memorandum of appeal which are quoted below: (B) For that the controversies between the parties being as to whether the Defendants-Appellants who are admittedly in possession of ell the suit lands are either Sikimi tenants or bhag tenants under the Plaintiff or are mere trespassers as claim by the Plaintiffs-Respondents is controversies squarely covered by the provision/provisions of the O.L.R. Act which has empowered Officers under the Act to decide the controversy and as such the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred u/s 67 of the O.L.R. Act. The learned lower appellate Court, therefore, acted contrary to law in reversing the decree of the trial Court in respect of plot No. 550, 387 and 1562. The learned lower appellate Court, therefore, acted contrary to law in reversing the decree of the trial Court in respect of plot No. 550, 387 and 1562. (C) For that lower counsel appellate court committed a serious error of law in reversing the decree of the trial Court to the effect that since the Plaintiff has not sought the relief of recovery of possession in respect of plot No. 550, 387 and 1562, the suit in respect thereof is liable to be dismissed, on the erroneous ground that such a relief can be granted by the Court since ad valorem Court fee had been paid. (D)For that the learned lower appellate Court committed a serious error of law in rejecting the plea of adverse possession of the Defendants-Appellants in respect of Plot No. 550. (D)For that the learned lower appellate Court committed a serious error of law in rejecting the plea of adverse possession of the Defendants-Appellants in respect of Plot No. 550. 387 and 1562 on the ground that such a plea is not permissible in view of the case set out in the written statement that the Defendants were inducted as tenants although he has acted on the finding of the Revenue Officer dated 19.11.1984 (Ext.4) in O.L.R. Case No. 329 of 1982, to the effect that the Defendants are not tenants in respect of the said plots although they are in exclusive possession thereof which order was passed at the fag end of the pendency of the suit in the trial Court (which was pending since 1980 and judgment was delivered on 6.2.85) and on the said finding of Revenue Officer, the possession of the Defendants of the aforesaid plot was adversed from its inception 20 years back particularity in view of the finding of the learned trial Court to the effect that the Defendants have made out their case of cultivating possession although the claim of their induction of the bhag tenants has been negatived by the Revenue Officer on which basis a claim of acquisition of title by the clefts, by adverse possession arises on the very finding of the Revenue Officer and the trial Court which plea could not possible have been specifically taken in the written statement since the order In the aforesaid O.L.R. case was passes at fag end of the pendency of the suit but under Order 7 Rule 7, CPC the claim which arises out of facts either admitted proved or found, the Court had male jurisdiction to consider the plea of adverse possession and the learned lower appellate Court should have recorded a finding that the Defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession. This was incumbent on the learned lower appellate Court in view of the well settled position of law that the hearing of an appeal under the procedural law of India is in the nature of re-hearing and therefore in moulding the relief to be granted in a case under appeal, the appellate Court is bound to take in to accounts the facts and events which has come in to existence subsequently, and since the learned lower appellate Court took into consideration, the finding recorded by the Revenue Officer in Ext.4, he should have taken into consideration the plea of adverse possession as an alternative plea even though it was not specifically taken in the written statement, since on the finding recorded by the learned trial Court and the learned Revenue Officer that the defts-Appellants have been in continuous peaceful cultivating possession for more than 20 years before the suit they have clearly acquired title by adverse possession. The cross-appeal was also admitted by this Court on the same day i.e. 18.11.86. 8. The learned Counsel for the Appellant referring to the substantial questions of law on which the appeal has been admitted argued that the lower appellate Court having confirmed all the findings of the trial Court could not have allowed the appeal in part in absence of prayer in the plaint for recovery of possession. According to the learned Counsel, forcible possession of the Defendants over the plot Nos. 550, 387 and 1562 having been confirmed in appeal, in absence of any prayer for recovery of possession the lower appellate Court should not have allowed the appeal and directed for recovery of possession. The learned Counsel for the Respondent, on other hand, submitted that law is well settled that even if the prayer for recovery of possession is not made, depending on the finding arrived at by the Court an order can also be passed for recovery of possession. In this connection, reference may be made to some decisions of this Court. In the case of V. Krishna Rao Dora and Ors. v. Kotini Sitaram Dora and Ors. reported in 1973 (2) C.W.R. 1283 a Division Bench of this Court held as follows: The learned single Judge also held that the suit was not maintainable as the Plaintiffs did not ask for the relief of recovery of possession and were satisfied with the relief of confirmation of possession. v. Kotini Sitaram Dora and Ors. reported in 1973 (2) C.W.R. 1283 a Division Bench of this Court held as follows: The learned single Judge also held that the suit was not maintainable as the Plaintiffs did not ask for the relief of recovery of possession and were satisfied with the relief of confirmation of possession. Law is now well settled that both 'recovery of possession' and 'Confirmation of possession' are consequential reliefs. If the suit is for declaration of title and any one of these consequential reliefs, then the Plaintiffs are to pay ad valorem Court-fees. In this case, ad valorem Court-fee has been paid on the amount for which the suit was valued. In-fact, the quantum of Court-fee being disputed the matter was ultimately decided by the Taxing Judge who held that the ad valorem Court fee paid on the disputed lands on the reduced valuation was sufficient. Doubtless, when possession is declared in favour of a party in a proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure the party not in possession must ask for the relief of recovery of possession, he having been held as being out of possession. But where ad valorem Court-fee has been paid, it is open to the Court to grant the relief of recovery of possession even if the prayer is for confirmation of possession. Such a relief would come within the ambit of the wide powers conferred upon the Courts to grant relief and that is why an omnibus prayer is added in the plaint that the Court may grant such relief as it thinks fit. In this case, the plaint contains such a prayer. Even if such a prayer has not been made, the Court is not powerless to grant the relief. In the facts and circumstances of this case the relief of recovery of possession can be granted to the Plaintiffs even though they prayed for confirmation of possession as they had paid ad valorem Court fee which is payable in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The said decision was again relied upon by this Court in the case of Jagabandhu Naik and Another Vs. The said decision was again relied upon by this Court in the case of Jagabandhu Naik and Another Vs. Gouri Bandha and Others, and the learned Single Judge observed as follows: Suit praying for declaration of title and confirmation of possession - Court can order recovery of possession though there is no specific prayer for recovery of possession if necessary Court* fee had been paid for. Another Division Bench of this Court also took the similar view in the case of Md. Aftabuddin Khan and Others Vs. Smt. Chandan Bilasini and Another, . 9. Perusal of the decisions referred to above clearly indicate that even it a prayer for recovery of possession is not made the Court is not powerless to grant relief for recovery of possession, in the present case as it appears from the plaint the Plaintiff had prayed for not only for confirmation of possession but also a general prayer was made to pass any order as may be deemed just and proper. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, the lower appellate Court was justified in directing recovery of possession in absence of the prayer to that effect. It also appears that the Plaintiff had paid required ad valorem Court fee and there could not have been any difficulty on the part of the lower, appellate Court in directing recovery of possession. 10. No other point having been raised by the Appellants at the time of argument. I do not find any other substantial question of law involved in the appeal. In view of the above finding, the second appeal must fail. 11. So far s the cross-appeal is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent contended that the lower appellate Court having allowed the appeal in respect of plot No. 550, 387 and 1562 should have also directed for correction of the record of rights in which forcible possession of the Defendants in respect of said plots had been recorded. 11. So far s the cross-appeal is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent contended that the lower appellate Court having allowed the appeal in respect of plot No. 550, 387 and 1562 should have also directed for correction of the record of rights in which forcible possession of the Defendants in respect of said plots had been recorded. I am of the view that since there is a prayer in the plaint for correction of entry of forcible possession of the Defendants, the lower appellate Court having come to a finding that the Plaintiff was the title holder in respect of the aforesaid three plots and that the Defendants have forcibly occupied the same, should have also directed for correction of the record of rights which indicates forcible possession of the Defendants over the aforesaid three plots. Accordingly, the cross-appeal is to be disposed of in favour of the Respondents. 12. I, therefore, while dismissing the appeal, allow the prayer of the Respondent in cross-appeal and direct that the forcible possession of the Defendants as noted in R.O.R. in respect of plot Nos. 550,387 and.1562 be corrected/deleted. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed