JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.3.2012 and 9.4.2012 respectively passed by the learned Adhoc Addl. District Judge (F.T.C.), Chhatrapur in R.F.A. No. 3 of 2011/R.F.A. No. 36/2010-GDC confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.2.2010 and 12.3.2010 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chhatrapur in C.S. No. 83 of 2007. 2. The dispute pertains to a land measuring area Ac.0.175 decimals appertaining to sabik patta No. 386, sabik survey No. 1497 which corresponds to hal khata No. 521, hal plot No. 3795/09 and consolidation khata No. 1029, plot No. 3184 of mouza-Raipur. The case of the plaintiff was that originally the suit land was the ancestral property of Raghunath Rana and Chaitanya Rana, sons of Gopinath Rana. Chaitanya was in possession of the land peacefully and uninterruptedly. After his death, his son Chandra was in possession of the same. On 22.10.2003 Chandra Sekhar sold the suit land to the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed No. 2523/2003 for a consideration of Rs.4900/-. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar, Purusottampur issued a show-cause notice to him on 22.2.2004 u/s.7 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act (hereinafter referred to as the “OPLE Act”) for eviction. He appeared before the Tahasildar and prayed to settle the land in his name since he is a landless scheduled caste person. He was given to understand that the case was dropped and an endorsement was made on the reverse of the notice to that effect. He enquired about the origin of the suit land after collection of settlement record published on 8.9.1976. Record of rights of the suit land was published in the name of his vendor’s father and elder uncle. He again applied for the certified copy of yadast and came to know that the suit land was in possession of his vendor since 1958. While the matter stood thus, he received another notice of an encroachment case bearing No. 36 of 2006 asking him to show cause on 20.1.2006 as to why he shall not be evicted. He sent a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on 18.10.2007 to the defendants. Thereafter he instituted the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. He sent a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on 18.10.2007 to the defendants. Thereafter he instituted the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants was that the suit land belongs to P.W. Department. Since the plaintiff was in possession of the same, the proceeding under the OPLE Act was initiated against him. He voluntarily vacated the land. Again he encroached upon the land for which another encroachment proceeding was initiated against him. Further the land was reserved for extension of road and the same cannot be settled in favour of any person. 4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed ten issues. They were:- “(1) Is the suit maintainable? (2) Is there any cause of action to bring the suit? (3) If the suit barred by law of limitation? (4) If the plaintiff has got any right, title and interest over the suit land? (5) If the suit land belongs to Govt. being P.W.D. land? (6) If the sale deed bearing No. 2523/2003 has the force to alienate the suit property in favour of the plaintiff? (7) If the vendor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff in to jointly have acquired right over the suit land through adverse possession? (8) If the case bearing E.C. No. 241/2004 and E.C. No. 36/06 are band under law? (9) If the defendants can be permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession over the suit land? (10) To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled?” 5. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined two witnesses in his favour and on his behalf six documents had been exhibited. No witnesses had examined on behalf of the defendants. 6. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff has failed to establish that his vender or the plaintiff have acquired title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. Held so, learned trial court answered issue nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 against the plaintiff. It is further held that the suit is not maintainable. Held so, learned trial court dismissed the suit. Held so, learned trial court answered issue nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 against the plaintiff. It is further held that the suit is not maintainable. Held so, learned trial court dismissed the suit. Assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiff filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Berhampur, which was registered as R.F.A. No. 36 of 2010. The same was transferred to the court of the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Chhatrapur, which was registered as R.F.A. No. 3 of 2011. Learned lower appellate court concurred with the findings of the court below and dismissed the appeal. 7. Heard Ms. Deepali Mohaptra, learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the documents exhibited by the plaintiff were marked without objection. Ext.6 is the yadast of the year 1958. Though the name of P.W. Department had been recorded in the record of right published in the year 1976 vide Ext.-3, but the names of his vendor Raghunath Rana and Loknath Rana had been reflected in the remarks column. The plaintiff purchased the suit land in the year 2003 from them. The proceeding under the OPLE Act was initiated against the plaintiff in the year 2004. The suit was filed in the year 2007. The plaintiff had unsuccessfully established that his vendor was in possession of the suit land peacefully, continuously and to the hostile animus of the owner. The plaintiff is also in possession of the land peacefully and uninterruptedly and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. 8. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is difficult to fathom. On an anatomy of the pleadings and evidence on record, both the courts below held that the defendants had initiated encroachment proceeding against the plaintiff, which was registered as L.E. Case No. 241 of 2004. During pendency of the proceeding, the plaintiff vacated the suit land. The same was recorded in the order-sheet dated 21.3.2005. Again he encroached upon the suit land. Another proceeding under the OPLE Act was initiated against him. Without preferring any appeal, the plaintiff had instituted the suit against the order dated 21.3.2005 passed by the OPLE authority. It further held that the suit land was not the ancestral property of the vendor of the plaintiff. Again he encroached upon the suit land. Another proceeding under the OPLE Act was initiated against him. Without preferring any appeal, the plaintiff had instituted the suit against the order dated 21.3.2005 passed by the OPLE authority. It further held that the suit land was not the ancestral property of the vendor of the plaintiff. Further in the encroachment case, the plaintiff has prayed to settle the land in his name. The concept of adverse possession contemplates a hostile possession, i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. 9. In Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and others vs. Balwant alias Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil (dead) by LRs. & heirs others, AIR 1995 SC 895 , the apex Court held thus:- “12. Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes that for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title, the limitation of 12 years begins to run from the date of the defendant's interest becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Adverse possession means a hostile assertion i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65, burden is on the defendants to prove affirmatively. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person, constitute adverse possession, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. The person who bases his title on adverse possession, therefore, must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. 13. Where possession could be referred to a lawful title, it will not be considered to be adverse. The reason being that a person whose possession can be referred to a lawful title will not be permitted to show that his possession was hostile to another's title. One who holds possession on behalf of another does not by mere denial of that other's title make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute of limitation. One who holds possession on behalf of another does not by mere denial of that other's title make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute of limitation. Therefore, a person who enters into possession having a lawful title, cannot divest another of that title by pretending that he had no title at all.” 10. The same ratio proprio vigore applies to the facts of this case as well. Both the courts below negatived the plea of the adverse possession. The second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.