JUDGMENT : A.K. Parichha, J. - This is a Plaintiffs' Second Appeal against the composite Judgment and decree passed by the Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in Title Appeal No. 3/10 of 1995/94 and Title Appeal No. 5/17 of 1996/94 2. The present Appellants, as Plaintiffs, filed Title Suit No. 255 of 1989 in the Court the Munsif, Puri for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant-Respondents from interfering with their possession over the suit property described in the schedule of the plaint. The case of the Plaintiffs, in substance, was that the suit land was lying fallow and the Plaintiffs occupied the same 45 years back, reclaimed the land for the purpose of agriculture and horticulture, planted trees, constructed temple and thatched house, dug a pond and openly enjoyed the property without any hindrance for a period of more than 30 years and acquired title over the same by adverse possession against the State. It was pleaded that the State Government never interfered with the open possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit property, but suddenly in the year 1989 at the instance of some political enemies of the Plaintiffs, the Defendants threatened to dismantle the house and temple, cut and remove the trees from the suit land and to evict the Plaintiffs, for which the Plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction against the Defendants along with a petition u/s 80(2), C.P.C. to dispense with service of notice prior to filing of the suit. 3. The Defendant-Respondent No. 2 did not file any written statement. Defendant No. 1, however, filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint inter alia pleading that the suit property is a Government land classified as 'patita' and 'Bijesthali' in the consolidation R.O.R. published on 13.12.1982, that the Plaintiffs never occupied this land, never constructed any house or temple, never planted any tree and never dug any tank over the same. It was pleaded that the suit land is all along under the control and management of the State and it has been alienated in favour of the O.S.E.B. for construction of a power station. The Defendant No. 1 alleged that the Plaintiff filed the suit with mala fide intention to stall the process of construction of the power station and to grab the suit property. The Defendant No. 1 alleged that the Plaintiff filed the suit with mala fide intention to stall the process of construction of the power station and to grab the suit property. The maintainability of the suit was also challenged on the ground that it is barred by limitation, there is no cause of action and the suit as framed is not maintainable. From the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed as many as 8 Issues. Plaintiff No. 1 examined himself and four witnesses and proved some documents, which were marked as Exts. 1 to 6. Defendant No. 1 examined the local Revenue Inspector as the only witness and adduced the documentary evidence vide Exts. A & B. On consideration of these evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property since 1964, they have not perfected their title of the suit property by adverse possession, the Defendants are not in management of the suit property, there is cause of action, the suit is not barred by limitation, and that the suit for injunction simplicitor is maintainable. Consequently the Trial Court decreed the suit in part on contest against Defendant No. 1 and ex parte against Defendant No. 2, thereby permanently injuncting the Defendants from interfering with possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit property and from dispossessing them there from except by due process of law. 4. The Plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 3/10 of 1995/94 challenging the findings of the Trial Court that they are not in adverse possession of the suit property for more than 30 years and the Defendants filed Title Appeal No. 5/17 of 1996/94 challenging the findings of the Trial Court on all the other issues. The 1st Appellate Court heard both the appeals together and by common Judgment, dismissed the appeal of the Plaintiffs, but allowed the appeal filed by the Defendants and ruled that the Plaintiffs are not entitled for any injunction. The said Judgment and decree is now under challenge in this appeal. 5. At the time of admission of the appeal, the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration. Whether the observation of the Learned 1st Appellate Court that no injunction can be granted against the owner at the behest of a trespasser/person in unlawful possession is based on sound principle of law? 6. Mr. 5. At the time of admission of the appeal, the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration. Whether the observation of the Learned 1st Appellate Court that no injunction can be granted against the owner at the behest of a trespasser/person in unlawful possession is based on sound principle of law? 6. Mr. S. Palit, Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that there is no legal bar for a trespasser to maintain a suit for injunction against the true owner. According to him, Learned 1st Appellate Court without properly appreciating the legal position and the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and Others Vs. Puna Municipal Corporation and Another, ruled that the person in unlawful possession cannot maintain a suit for injunction against the rightful owner of that property. Supporting the observation of the Trial Court, he stated that the person in possession of immovable property can maintain a suit for injunction against the rightful owner and relied on the case of Karthiyayani Amma Vs. Govindan, . 7. Mr. Sangram Das, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand, supported the findings of the 1st Appellate Court and stated that injunction cannot be granted against the owner at the instance of the person in unlawful possession. He further stated that the ratio laid down in the case of Mahadeo Savlaram Sheike (supra) squarely applies to the present case. 8. The Courts below came to the finding that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land, but they have not perfected their title over the same by way of adverse possession. Such findings were recorded after a detailed analysis of the evidence on record and position of law. In fact the Courts below at the out-set analysed the legal position and observed that because the suit land was admittedly a land of the State and stands recorded in the consolidation record in the name of the State, burden was on the Plaintiffs to establish that they have acquired title over the suit land by adverse possession. In fact the Courts below at the out-set analysed the legal position and observed that because the suit land was admittedly a land of the State and stands recorded in the consolidation record in the name of the State, burden was on the Plaintiffs to establish that they have acquired title over the suit land by adverse possession. Analysing the documentary and oral evidence of the parties and applying the legal principles, the Courts below came to the conclusion that though the Plaintiffs are in possession of a portion of the suit properly, they have not acquired title over the same by adverse possession as they failed to prove their hostile possession for a continuous period of 30 years and could not prove the starting point of their hostile animus against the State. A Court of Second Appeal cannot upset the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below unless the finding is, based on no evidence or result of perverse approach or because of placing of burden of proof on the wrong person. As has been indicated, the findings of the Courts below do not suffer from any of the above lacunae. Therefore, it is to be accepted that the Plaintiffs are in unlawful possession of a portion of the suit land. Now the question for consideration is as to whether with such status, the Plaintiffs could maintain the suit for injunction against the Defendants, who are the recorded owners of the suit property. In the case of Karthiami v. Govindan (supra), the Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala made the following observation. A person in possession of immovable property can sustain a suit for injunction against rightful owner. A person in possession can be evicted only in due process of law. If he cannot be evicted with force, he continues to be in possession and he can resist invasion of his possession by everyone including the rightful owner. If the said owner threatens his peaceful possession he can approach Courts of law and pray for equitable relief of injunction to protect his possession. 9. There is no dispute that even a true owner cannot evict a person in possession by force without taking recourse to due process of law. If the said owner threatens his peaceful possession he can approach Courts of law and pray for equitable relief of injunction to protect his possession. 9. There is no dispute that even a true owner cannot evict a person in possession by force without taking recourse to due process of law. But there is no clear observation in the above said case that the person in unlawful possession can maintain a suit for injunction against the true owner to restrain such owner from evicting him. In this regard, the legal position was clarified by the Apex Court in the case of Mahadeo Savlaram Sheike (supra). In that case the Pune Municipality acquired lands of some persons for widening of the road to case the traffic congestion. However, after acquisition of the land and order of eviction, some of those persons remained in possession. Those persons brought the suit for injunction against the Pune Municipality seeking injunction against their eviction. The Apex Court after analyzing the legal provision held that after the order of eviction was passed, there was no right in favour of the Appellants to remain in possession and because their possession was unlawful, they cannot seek any injunction against the rightful owner from evicting them. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Premji Ratansey Shah and Ors. v. Union of India JT 1994(6) SC 585 categorically observed that injunction would not be issued against a true owner at the behest of an unlawful possessor and held that the Courts below rightly rejected the relief of declaration and injunction in favour of ihe Appellants, who had no interest in the property. The Court also observed that even assuming that such persons had any possession, their possession was unlawful and injunction could not be issued in favour of a trespasser or person who gained unlawful possession as against the owner. Similar view was also taken by the Madras High Court in the case of Subbiah Pillai v. T. Pilai 2004 (1) CLJ 408. Our own High Court also held the same view in the case of Fakir Senapati Vs. Tahsildar and Others. In that case, the Plaintiff had failed to prove that he was a lessee of the property. The Defendant was found to be its owner. Our own High Court also held the same view in the case of Fakir Senapati Vs. Tahsildar and Others. In that case, the Plaintiff had failed to prove that he was a lessee of the property. The Defendant was found to be its owner. It was held that as no Injunction can be allowed against a true owner, by a person in unlawful possession, the Second Appeal must fail. Although the fact situation of these cases and the present case are not exactly similar, but the observation of the Courts clarify that the person in unlawful possession cannot maintain a suit for injunction against the rightful owner. 10. As has been said earlier, the Plaintiffs are in unlawful possession of a portion of the suit land and they filed the suit to injunct the rightful owner from evicting them and giving the land to OSEB for construction of power station. Being persons in unlawful possession, they were not entitled to a decree for injunction against the Defendants, who are the rightful owner. The finding of the 1st Appellate Court in this regard, is, thus found to be in accordance with the settled legal position. 11. (SIC) The substantial question of law is, therefore, answered against the Appellants. Consequently, the Judgment and decree of the 1st Appellate Court are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed on contest without cost. Final Result : Dismissed