JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The unsuccessful Plaintiffs are the Appellants herein. They had filed Title Suit No. 41 of 1984/20 of 1989 in the Court of the Addl. Munsif, Bhadrak inter alia praying for declaration that the M.S. record-of-rights in respect of the suit land was wrong and further declaration that the registered sale deeds executed in favour of contesting Defendants 1 and 2 and Banchhanidhi Behera was void; that the contesting Defendants had no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit land, as well as, for permanent injunction restraining them from coming upon the suit land besides other ancillary reliefs. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the Plaintiffs' case in brief is that the suit land appertaining to C.S. Khata No. 620, Plot No. 2515 measuring Ac.0.34 dec. originally belonged to the ancestors of the Plaintiffs and the pro forma Defendants. They had installed Plaintiff No. 1 Deity on the suit land and created a private Debottar by endowing the suit land along with other lands in favour of the Deity and acted as Marfatdars of the said Deity, On a portion of the suit land the Temple and Bijesthali of the Deity existed. 3. It was averred in the plaint that Defendant No. 1 being found in possession of a portion of the suit land some of the Marfatdars of the Deity had filed T.S. No. 32 of 1970 to evict him. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement in that suit taking the stand that his mother Mandodari had purchased the lands by registered sale deeds from the Marfatdars of the Deity and was in possession thereof. The Trial Court decreed the said suit (T.S. No. 32 of 1970) directing eviction of Defendant No. 1. 4. On enquiry the Plaintiffs ascertained that one Ananta Pati, one of the Marfatdars of the Deity, had transferred by way of a registered sale deed Ac.0.03 decimals of land out of Plot No. 2515 in favour of one Banchhanidhi Behera. But then said Banchhanidhi being not able to possess the same, was compelled to transfer the same in favour of the ancestors of Defendants 4 to 8 by a registered sale deed dated 19-8-1960. But then said Banchhanidhi being not able to possess the same, was compelled to transfer the same in favour of the ancestors of Defendants 4 to 8 by a registered sale deed dated 19-8-1960. The Plaintiffs further learnt that in consonance with the said sale deed dated 19-8-1960 the Settlement authorities recorded the suit land in favour of the contesting Defendants, though in fact they were not in possession of any portion of the land. The Defendants having threatened the Plaintiffs with dispossession from the suit land on the strength of the sale deed coupled with the record-of-rights the latter were compelled to file the suit (T.S. No. 41 of 1984/20 of 1988). 5. Defendants 9 to 12 did not appear in the suit and were set ex parte. 5. Defendants 1 to 3 and 4 to 8 filed two separate written statements denying the plaint averments and taking the stand that the suit property was neither an absolute Debottar nor was a part of the Bijesthali of the Deity, but was the personal property of the ancestors of the Plaintiffs and pro forma Defendants. For bona fide necessity they had sold a portion of the suit land in favour of different persons and the purchasers by virtue of the said sales became owners in possession. They further averred that the Settlement authorities after due verification and enquiry and on being satisfied that the said sales had conferred valid right, title and interest, recorded the names of the contesting Defendants in respect of the suit land which was purchased by them. They were in possession of the suit land by constructing shop-rooms continuously and uninterruptedly for more than twelve years and had become absolute owners in possession thereof. According to these Defendants, the Plaintiffs had filed the suit only to harass them and the same was liable to be dismissed. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as ten issues for deciding the suit. It decided preliminarily issue Nos. 2 and 8, viz. (2) Was the suit maintainable? and (8) Was the suit barred under the provisions of Sections 25 and 73 of the OHRE Act in favour of the Plaintiffs? 6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as ten issues for deciding the suit. It decided preliminarily issue Nos. 2 and 8, viz. (2) Was the suit maintainable? and (8) Was the suit barred under the provisions of Sections 25 and 73 of the OHRE Act in favour of the Plaintiffs? After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and analyzing the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties it held that the suit land was the absolute Debottar and that the sale deeds executed in favour of Defendants 1 and 2 by the Marfatdars of the Deity were void and no title did pass there-under. However it further held that the suit having been filed after twelve years, the same was barred by limitation and that the Defendants who were in possession of the suit land for more than the period prescribed under Article 94 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had acquired valid title thereto by way of adverse possession. With the aforesaid findings the Trial Court dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved, the Plaintiffs filed T.A. No. 7/41 of 1989 which was heard and disposed of by the Addl. District Judge, Bhadrak. The said Appellate Court after perusing the materials on record as also the Judgment of the Trial Court held that the findings of the Trial Court that the suit was barred by limitation was well-founded. Further, as the Plaintiff-Appellants had not filed any suit within the statutory period of limitation for recovery of possession of the suit land from the Defendants, Defendants 1 to 3 had perfected their title in respect of the said land by way of adverse possession. On the basis of such conclusions the Appellate Court confirmed the Judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. This Second Appeal has been filed assailing the confirming Judgment of the Appellate Court. 8. In course of hearing, Mr. P. Kar, Learned Counsel for the Appellants, submitted that the suit land having been recorded as 'Bijesthali' of Plaintiff No. 1 Deity, the Courts below were not justified in holding that the Defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession thereon. 8. In course of hearing, Mr. P. Kar, Learned Counsel for the Appellants, submitted that the suit land having been recorded as 'Bijesthali' of Plaintiff No. 1 Deity, the Courts below were not justified in holding that the Defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession thereon. He further submitted that the cause of action having arisen with effect from 15-3-1983 when the M.S. record-of-rights had been published followed by Defendants 1 to 8 threatening the Plaintiffs to enter into the suit land, the Courts below acted illegally in holding that the suit was barred under Article 94 of the Limitation At. Mr. Kar also submitted that in consonance with the decree passed in T.S. No. 32 of 1970 the Deity had already taken possession of Ac.0.01 dec.of land and thus the claim of Defendants was only in respect of Ac.0.02 dec. and, as such, the decree ought to have been confined only to Ac.0.02 dec. The last submission of Mr. Kar is that the Parcha issued in the Major Settlement vide Ext.5 being in the name of the Deity, it ought to have been presumed that the Deity was in possession. 9. All these aspects having been lost sight of by the Courts below, the decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside and the suit may be decreed. All the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Kar are stoutly denied by Mr. B.H. Mohanty appearing for the contesting Defendants. Referring to para-3 of the plaint, Mr. Mohanty submitted that the Temple exists on plot No. 2514 and a part of plot No. 2515. The suit land appertains to plot No. 2515. This being the admitted fact and further a house having existing on plot No. 2515 from time immemorial, the submission that the disputed land is a part of the Bijesthali of the Deity is not correct. According to Mr. Mohanty, Plaintiff No. 1- is a private Deity and the suit land is a part and parcel of the ancestral property of the Plaintiffs and pro forma Defendants. The suit land is partiable. Evidence also reveals that portions of the properties of the parties were sold away by different co-sharers part by part as and when necessity arose. Thus the argument of Mr. Kar that the sale deeds executed in favour of the Defendants was contrary to law cannot be accepted. 10. The suit land is partiable. Evidence also reveals that portions of the properties of the parties were sold away by different co-sharers part by part as and when necessity arose. Thus the argument of Mr. Kar that the sale deeds executed in favour of the Defendants was contrary to law cannot be accepted. 10. After perusing the decrees of the Courts below, this Court finds that the said Courts have clearly held that the suit land is a part and parcel of the Bijesthali of Plaintiff No. 1-Deity. The said finding having not been assailed by the Defendants, has attained finality. Admittedly by a registered sale deed the suit land has been sold in favour of an outsider who in his turn sold the same to the mother of the contesting Defendants. The oral evidence clearly reveals that both the vendors as well as the contesting Defendants were residing on a thatched house constructed on the suit land for years together. Law is no more res integra that transfer of a property belonging to a private Deity for legal necessity by one of the Marfatdars can at best be a voidable transaction, but not void. 11. In consonance with Mukherjee's Hindu Law on Charitable Trusts, possession of an alienee over a private Deity's property becomes adverse if no steps are taken for dispossession within a period of twelve years. Law is also well settled that if a person enters into possession by virtue of an invalid transaction and possesses a land as a true owner thereof to the knowledge of all concerned, such possession turns to adverse possession after lapse of twelve years and the provisions of Article 94 of the Limitation Act would squarely apply. That apart, adverse possession being a question of fact, finding thereon cannot be interfered in a Second Appeal. 12. For the aforesaid discussions, this Court declines to interfere with the concurrent decision of the Courts below and consequently dismisses the Second Appeal. This Court directs the parties to bear their respective costs. Final Result : Dismissed