JUDGMENT : A.K. Parichha, J. - This is a Defendants' appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by Learned' Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar in Title Appeal No. 40 of 1994, reversing the Judgment and decree of Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Keonjhar recorded in T.S. No. 4 of 1988. 2. The Present Respondents as Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration their right, title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and alternatively for recovery of possession of that land, if they are found dispossessed in the meantime and for issuance of permanent injunction against the Defendants from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit land. The case of the Plaintiffs was that their grand-father-Butu Behera. purchased the suit land from the father of the Defendants in the year 1952 for a consideration of Rs. 100/- took delivery of possession of that land and continued possession over the suit land where after his son Harihar Palei possessed the same and after the death of Harihar, they are in possession of the suit land. The Plaintiffs further pleaded that nine to ten years before the institution of the suit their residential house over the suit land was gutted with fire and they shifted to another residence. Taking advantage of the situation, the Defendants created disturbance over the suit land and tried to take over possession for which there was a proceeding u/s 145, Cr.P.C. Vide CMC No. 196 of 1987 before the Executive Magistrate. Since that proceeding terminated in favour of the Defendants, they filed the suit seeking the aforementioned relief. The Plaintiffs also pleaded that if at all the sale is found illegal or invalid, by virtue of their peaceful and uninterrupted possession over the suit land they have acquired title by adverse possession. 3. The Defendants contested the suit pleading inter alia that there was never any sale of the suit land by their father, that the Plaintiffs or their fore-fathers never possessed the suit land and they also never acquired any title over the suit land by adverse possession as they were not in possession of the suit land for thirty years. 3. The Defendants contested the suit pleading inter alia that there was never any sale of the suit land by their father, that the Plaintiffs or their fore-fathers never possessed the suit land and they also never acquired any title over the suit land by adverse possession as they were not in possession of the suit land for thirty years. From the pleadings of the parties, Learned Trial Court framed as many as seven issues and on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the sale transaction was invalid as there was no registered sale deed and that the Plaintiffs also never acquired title over the suit land by way of adverse possession as they could not prove their continuous, upon and hostile possession for a period of thirty years. With these findings he dismissed the suit. The Plaintiffs preferred appeal. The Appellate Court agreed with the findings of the Trial Court about the invalidity of the sale transaction and observed that the sale transaction being for a consideration of Rs. 100/- was invalid and it was not effected through a registered sale deed. The Appellate Court, however, concluded that for acquiring title by adverse possession the Plaintiffs were required to show their continuous, open and hostile possession for a period of twelve years only and because the evidence show that they were in possession for about twenty six years, they acquired title over the suit land by adverse possession. The said finding is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Though, at the time of admission, the grounds noted in paragraph-2, (c) (d) and (f) of the appeal memo were accepted as substantial questions of law for consideration, it appears that the only substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal is - "whether the amended period of limitation contemplated in Section 23-B of the OLR Act and Article 65 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the present case?" 5. Mr. Rati Kanta Nayak, Learned Counsel for the Appellants relyinlg on Section 23-B of the OLR Act submits that the period of limitation for acquiring title by adverse possession in respect of land of a scheduled caste/tribal person being thirty years, Learned first Appellate Court was not justified in its observation that the required period for a trespasser to acquire title over such land was only twelve years. According to him, the amendment in the period of limitation in respect of lands of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe persons has been brought to protect the right of such weaker Section and therefore, the amended provision can be construed to have a retrospective effect and applicable to all pending litigations. 6. Mr. S.S. Das-I, Learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand contends that the amendment to the period of limitation concerning Section 23-B of the OLR Act came into force in the year 1991, which was a date much after the filing of the suit by the Plaintiffs and, therefore, the said amended provision is not applicable to the present case, particularly when, there is no stipulation that the amended provision would have retrospective effect. He states that before the amendment, the period of limitation for acquiring title by adverse possession was twelve years and because the Plaintiffs established their possession for more than twelve years over the suit land, Learned first Appellate Court rightly held that the Plaintiffs have acquired title over the suit land by adverse possession. 7. Learned Trial Court after examining the oral and documentary evidence and the presumption attached to the ROR-Ext 1, Draft Parcha- Exts-2, 2(a) and the rent receipts Ext-4 series came to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs' family were in continuous possession over the suit land for a period of about twenty six years. This finding of the Trial Court has been concurred by the first Appellate Court. In view of this concurrent finding it has to be accepted that the Plaintiffs' family was in continuous possession over the suit land for a period of more than twelve years. Section 23-B(ii), which brought about the amendment in Article 65 of the Limitation Act from twelve years to thirty years in case of immovable property belonging to the members of Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste in the State of Orissa, was inserted vide Orissa Act No. 8 of 1991. 8. In this Act, there is no contemplation that this amendment will have retrospective effect or will apply to all the pending suits and appeals. When there is no specific stipulation in an Act about its retrospective nature, it has to be presumed that the provision is prospective. 8. In this Act, there is no contemplation that this amendment will have retrospective effect or will apply to all the pending suits and appeals. When there is no specific stipulation in an Act about its retrospective nature, it has to be presumed that the provision is prospective. So this amendment inserted by Orissa Act No. 8 of 1991 will have force from the date of amendment and will be applicable to the cases, which are instituted after the date of amendment. This observation finds support from the case of Ghanashyam Meher Vs. Bhima Ganda alias Kumbhar (having died), Lakhapati Kumbhar and Others, where it was said that right acquired by way of adverse possession prior to incorporation of Section 23-B enhancing,the period of limitation is not affected by the amended provision. 9. The view taken by the first Appellate Court that the Plaintiffs acquired title over the suit land by adverse possession by remaining in possession more than twelve years over the suit land is thus not contrary to the legal provision as admittedly the suit was filed by the Plaintiffs in the year 1988. 10. The substantial question of law is accordingly answered against the Appellants and in consequence, the appeal is dismissed on contest, but considering the technical nature of the issue, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Final Result : Dismissed