JUDGMENT A.S. NAIDU, J. : The dispute in the present Writ application arises out of a consolidation proceeding. 2. The disputed properties measure about Ac.0.82 dec. appertaining to Plot Nos.2051, 2005, 1583, 1590 and 1791 and Khata No.286 situated in Mouza Baingol in the district of Cut¬tack. The petitioner, opposite party No.5 and one Pravakar father of opposite party No.4 are the sons of late Kelu Charan. It is asserted that the properties in question, were the joint family properties. The petitioner who was an employee in the Police Department was staying outside his village and opposite parties 4 and 5 were staying in the village and were looking after the properties of the family. In the year 1955, the petitioner paid some money to opposite parties 4 and 5 to enable them to purchase the disputed properties from one Brajananda Biswal and Jadumani Biswal for a consideration of Rs.800.00, the entire amount being paid by the petitioner. But then taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner in the village, the said opposite parties got the sale deed executed in their names. 3. In the year 1960 the petitioner retired from service and returned to his village. After coming to know the aforesaid act of opposite parties 4 and 5 he dispossessed the said opposite parties from the disputed properties and possessed the same exclusively. While matter stood thus, the village in which the disputed properties are situated came under consolidation as per the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmenta¬tion of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The petitioner thereafter filed Objection Case before the Consol¬idation Officer, Tirtol registered as Objection Case No.2287/432 for recording the disputed properties in his favour. The Consoli¬dation Officer after hearing the parties and relying upon the sale deed executed in favour of opposite parties 4 and 5 dis¬missed the Objection Case by his order dated 30.9.1982. Thereaf¬ter the petitioner filed an Appeal; which was also dismissed. 4. The said order, according to the petitioner, could not be assailed in appeal as the petitioner became ill. After his recovery from illness the petitioner filed a Revision Case before the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack under Section 36 of the Act, registered as Revision Case No.423 of 1985 along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. After his recovery from illness the petitioner filed a Revision Case before the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack under Section 36 of the Act, registered as Revision Case No.423 of 1985 along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. The Commissioner, however, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the Revision Case. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commis¬sioner refusing to condone the delay and consequently dismissing the Revision Case, the petitioner approached this Court in OJC No.823 of 1992 and took a false stand that the Revision Case having been filed under Section 37 of the Act there was no period of limitation. This Court quashed the order of the Commissioner and remitted the matter back to the said authority with direction to him to dispose of the Revision Case on merit. 6. Thereafter the Revision Case was taken up for hearing once again by the Commissioner. The Commissioner after perusing the records found that the properties in question were purchased by opposite parties 4 and 5 through a registered sale deed dated 18.1.1955 and the same were recorded in their names. According to the petitioner,the consideration money for purchasing the disput¬ed properties had been paid by him and therefore the said proper¬ties belonged to the joint family consisting of the petitioner and opposite parties 4 and 5. This fact could not be established by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer by adducing cogent evidence. Consequently the Objection Case filed by the petitioner with a prayer to record the disputed properties in his favour was rejected. Thereafter the petitioner had filed an appeal, registered as Appeal Case No.283 of 1982 before the Deputy Director concerned. The said appellate authority also, after perusing the materials on record and on being satisfied that the petitioner could not establish his title over the dis¬puted properties, dismissed the appeal. The Commissioner further held that there was absolutely no averment in the Objection Case that the disputed properties were the species of the joint family of the parties. On the other hand, it appears that the same had been purchased by a registered sale deed in the names of opposite parties 4 and 5. It was also found that there was no pleading with regard to acquisition of title over the disputed properties by the petitioner through adverse possession. On the other hand, it appears that the same had been purchased by a registered sale deed in the names of opposite parties 4 and 5. It was also found that there was no pleading with regard to acquisition of title over the disputed properties by the petitioner through adverse possession. On the basis of such conclusions the Commissioner dismissed the Revision Case on merit as well as on the ground of limitation. 7. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner, submit¬ted that the disputed properties were species of the joint family as the entire consideration money had been paid by the petitioner to opposite parties 4 and 5 with the understanding that the properties would be purchased jointly in the names of all the three brothers. He further submitted that opposite parties 4 and 5 got the sale deed executed in their names only betraying the petitioner, but then such purchase would not make them absolute owners and it would be construed that the petitioner had also a share in the said properties. This aspect was not kept in mind by the Consolidation authorities. That apart, according to Mr. Nanda, the petitioner was in exclusive possession of the disputed properties for more than the statutory period and thus he has acquired title by adverse possession and on that ground also the properties in question should be recorded in favour of the peti¬tioner. 8. The aforesaid submissions are strongly repudiated by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties. He submit¬ted that the concept of ‘Benami Transaction’ has been set at naught by an Act. Thus it is not open to the petitioner to claim that though the disputed properties had been purchased by a registered sale deed in the names of opposite parties 4 and 5, they were only ‘Benamidars’ and the petitioner was the ostensible owner. Such a plea cannot be taken. He further submitted that the petitioner should not be permitted to blow both hot and cold. He cannot take the plea that the disputed properties belong to joint family, and at the same time claim adverse possession over the same. If the properties belong to joint family, possession of one co-sharer cannot be adverse to others. He further submitted that the petitioner should not be permitted to blow both hot and cold. He cannot take the plea that the disputed properties belong to joint family, and at the same time claim adverse possession over the same. If the properties belong to joint family, possession of one co-sharer cannot be adverse to others. That apart, the plea of adverse possession having not been taken in the Objection Case and no evidence having been adduced to prove the hostile animus of the petitioner, the authorities below rightly discarded the said plea. Besides, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the Revision Case had been filed much beyond the period of limitation, inasmuch as the appeal had been dismissed in the year 1982, while the Revi¬sion Case was filed with a delay of almost 812 days. He submitted that the petition filed under Section 36 of the Act was not main¬tainable as the same was grossly barred by time. 9. This Court head the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the orders of the authorities below. Though the petition claims his title to the disputed proper¬ties by adverse possession, h has not adduced any evidence to substantiate such plea. The petitioner has not even filed a copy of the Objection Petition filed by him before the Consolidation Officer for this Court to be satisfied that in fact such a plea had been taken by him before the Consolidation authorities. Law is well settled that in absence of specific pleadings,question of adverse possession cannot be determined. The sale deed was regis¬tered in the names of opposite parties 4 and 5. Thus they are to be considered as the rightful owners of the disputed properties as has been rightly held by the Consolidation authorities. No material, either oral or documentary, was produced by the peti¬tioner to prove that the consideration money for purchasing the disputed properties had been paid from out of the joint family nucleus. There is also no material to show that the entire con¬sideration money had been paid by the petitioner. 10. Adverse possession is essentially a hostile possession, possession in denial of the title of the true owner. There is a basic distinction between an adverse possession as between strangers and ouster and exclusion of co-owners. There is also no material to show that the entire con¬sideration money had been paid by the petitioner. 10. Adverse possession is essentially a hostile possession, possession in denial of the title of the true owner. There is a basic distinction between an adverse possession as between strangers and ouster and exclusion of co-owners. In the case of adverse possession as against strangers, it is sufficient that such possession is overt and without any attempt of concealment, so that person against whom time is running with the exercise of due vigilance could be aware of what is happening. On the other hand, the possession of one co-owner is presumed to be on behalf of all co-owners in view of the unity of title and possession. Because of this presumption of joint ownerships in the case of co-owners, the law requires to constitute ouster, i.e. proof of something more than mere exclusive possession. Along with exclu¬sive possession, there must be a hostile, open denial and open refutation of other co-owners’ right to the latter’s knowledge. The co-owner in exclusive possession cannot render his possession adverse to the other co-owner merely by any secret or hostile animus on his own part in derogation of other co-owner’s title. 11. In the case at hand, as has been more-fully described in the preceding paragraphs, the plea of the petitioner all through was that the disputed lands were joint family properties. Thus, in the absence of the plea of ouster and proof thereof, the petitioner cannot claim adverse possession against the other co-owners. This Court further finds that the Commissioner took all the aspects into consideration and the impugned order passed by him does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. This Court is therefore not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Commissioner exercising Certiorari Jurisdiction and accordingly dismisses the Writ application. Application dismissed.