JUDGMENT : This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Gajapati in R.F.A. No. 23 of 2013 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parlakhemundi in C.S. No. 49 of 2010. The above noted six appellants, being the legal representatives of one Nilambar Naik had filed the suit for declaration of their title by virtue of open, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the suit land for upward of the prescribed period with the prayer for mandatory injunction directing the respondents (defendant nos. 1 to 4) to so prepare the land records in their name and for permanently restraining all the respondents from disturbing in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by them. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court. 3. Plaintiffs case is that their predecessor-in-interest Nilambar Naik had made the suit land fit for agriculture by clearing the bushes and as such he continued remain in possession of the suit land for more than thirty years. Whereafter plaintiffs being his legal representatives are in cultivating possession of the same. It is stated that the question of recognition of the forest dwellers as to their rights as such arose in view of coming into force of the Scheduled Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Right) Act. So in the year 2010 as provided in the said Act, Grama Sabha being constituted, the resolution had been passed therein over the rights of defendant nos. 5 to 19 as above so as to be recognized and accordingly for preparation of the record in respect of the suit land. Plaintiffs being aggrieved by the same and apprehending further action in that direction detrimental to their rights and interest as above, filed the suit. 4. Defendant nos. 1 to 4 in the written statement denied the factum of possession of the suit land by Nilambar as also the plaintiffs at any point of time. It is also stated that the defendant nos. 4. Defendant nos. 1 to 4 in the written statement denied the factum of possession of the suit land by Nilambar as also the plaintiffs at any point of time. It is also stated that the defendant nos. 5 to 19 have been in possession of the suit land which is of forest kisam, and they being tribal forest dwellers, their rights as such over the said land have been rightly recognized in consonance with the provision of the Act governing the field. It is also stated that the defendants are in possession of the said land having their houses and have also grown the trees over there. The recommendation of the Gram Sabha is asserted to be correct and that is said to be based on proper field enquiry. Correctness of which has further been ascertained through Government officials. 5. Defendant nos. 5 to 14 in their written statement have denied the factum of possession of the suit land at any point of time by Nilambar. They stated that Nilamber had never cleared the bushes over the suit land and made it fit for cultivation. The claim of possession of the suit land by the plaintiffs had also been denied. The action of the body constituted under the Act are thus said to be just and proper. They claim that they have in possession of the suit land not as trespassers having made forcible entry over the suit land but as the traditional forest dwellers satisfying all the legal requirements as per the provisions of the Act and as such to have been rightly so recognized. 6. Faced with rival pleadings, the trial court framed six issues. Rightly taking up the important issues i.e. issue nos. 4, 5 and 6 for decision at first, upon analysis of evidence and on their assessment in the back drop of the rival pleadings, the claim of right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land has been rejected. It has been said that neither Nilambar nor these plaintiffs have perfected their title over the suit land by adverse possession and they are also not in possession. This finding has resulted in dismissal of the suit. 7. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by such dismissal of the suit had filed the first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This finding has resulted in dismissal of the suit. 7. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by such dismissal of the suit had filed the first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first appellate court sitting over to examine the sustainability of the findings of the trial court on the crucial issues together, as it appears has taken up the exercise of appreciation of evidence afresh at its level being the duty bound and as ordained by law. 8. Scrutinizing the evidence on record and upon their assessment and considering the same along with the pleadings, ultimate conclusion has remained the same as that of the trial court. Thus the plaintiffs having failed in their attempt to get the order of dismissal of the suit set aside, have filed this second appeal under section 100 of the Code. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that here the courts below have committed grave error both in law and fact by not recording the findings in favour of the plaintiffs that they have perfected the title over the suit land by way of adverse possession having remained in open, peaceful and continuous possession in so far as the suit land is concerned since the time of their predecessor-in-interest for much more than the prescribed period. Therefore according to him, the courts below ought to have also held that as the appellants have the rightful claim in terms of the section 2(d) and section 3 of the Scheduled Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Right) Act, the action of the defendant nos. 1 to 4 to be illegal. It is also submitted that the overwhelming evidence being on record as regards the open, long and continuous possession of the suit land by the plaintiffs, the courts below ought to have accepted the same that it was by exhibiting the hostile animus denying the title of the true owner, and claiming that to the knowledge of the true owner they have been in possession as such. These according to him, are the substantial questions of law which arise in the case for certification for the purpose of admission of this appeal. 10. The suit for declaration of title is founded upon the plaintiffs case of open, peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land for more than the prescribed period. These according to him, are the substantial questions of law which arise in the case for certification for the purpose of admission of this appeal. 10. The suit for declaration of title is founded upon the plaintiffs case of open, peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land for more than the prescribed period. The courts below have recorded the concurrent findings that the plaintiffs have not been able to establish their case of acquisition of title over the suit land by adverse possession specifically pleading and proving all those facts or showing any such circumstance in the direction for fulfillment of the legal requirements. 11. The settled position of law in relation to the doctrine of adverse possession is that a person who claims title over the immovable property by virtue of adverse possession has to plead and prove all those legal requirements that the possession has been open, peaceful and continuous exhibiting hostile animus and in denial the title of the true owner claiming the same unto himself and to the knowledge of the true owner. The classical requirements are ‘nec vi’, ‘nec calm’ and ‘nec precario’. The settled position of law is clear that mere possession of the land by the possessor for any length of time whatever it may be, does not enure to the benefit of the possessor in establishing the claim of acquisition of title by adverse possession and that itself is not enough. The burden of proof as above thus lies upon the person who claims title as such. 12. Having read the judgment of the courts below carefully, very important aspect strikes to the mind of this Court which seems to have been completely lost the sight of the courts below and that itself if taken into account in its proper prospective and put to pass through the legal prism, the foundation of the plaintiffs’ case may not remain visible in the eye of law. Admittedly, an encroachment proceeding has been initiated against the father of the plaintiffs in the year 1993. The document on that score has been proved by the plaintiffs. In that very proceeding, the plaintiffs themselves admitted that their father Nilamber had paid the penalty and thus have remained in unauthorized possession, accepting his status as that of an unauthorized occupant. This document is Ext.7. The document on that score has been proved by the plaintiffs. In that very proceeding, the plaintiffs themselves admitted that their father Nilamber had paid the penalty and thus have remained in unauthorized possession, accepting his status as that of an unauthorized occupant. This document is Ext.7. The pleadings merely remain that the possession in spite of that continued as before with Nilambar and then came to the hands of the plaintiffs. Undoubtedly, just initiation of an encroachment proceeding has nothing to do either in arresting the period of continuity in possession or giving any different colour to its nature and manner. Unless, it is specifically proved that the possessor has been physically driven out from the possession on the strength of an order passed in the encroachment proceeding in accordance with law mere initiation of the encroachment proceeding is of no fatal consequence in any way in so far as the claim of acquisition of title by the possessor is concerned. But once the penalty has been paid, there comes the clear acceptance of the title of the true owner relegating and placing the possessor in the position as that of an unauthorized occupant. In that situation prior possession for any length of time even for a moment if we assume to be with the fulfillment of the legal requirements loses all its significance in the eye of law and the same places the possessor in no better footing than that of a mere trespasser. In such a case, the possessor’s claim of title by adverse possession would again arise if he pleads and proves that after payment of fine in the encroachment case from a particular date he began to possess as its owner denying the title of the true owner and asserting the same unto to himself and that too it must again cover the prescribed period running afresh from that very date of possession exhibiting hostile animus. The possessor for the purpose must show all such circumstances which would lead to conclude all those aforesaid. But here what is found that there remains neither such pleadings nor evidence on those scores when it is also not said and proved that the fine had been paid under threat or being coerced and thus not voluntarily. The possessor for the purpose must show all such circumstances which would lead to conclude all those aforesaid. But here what is found that there remains neither such pleadings nor evidence on those scores when it is also not said and proved that the fine had been paid under threat or being coerced and thus not voluntarily. For the above discussion and reasons, even without taking any view over the discussion of the evidence and the reason assigned by the courts below in recording the concurrent findings, on this above particular score, this Court is left with no option but to say that there remains no flaw with the said ultimate findings either in the matter of appreciation of evidence or construction of pleading or application of the settled legal principles. 13. The provision of section 2(o) of the Act defines “Other Traditional Forest Dwellers” means any member of the community who has at least for last three generation prior to the 13th December, 2005 primarily resided in and who depends upon the forest or forest land for bona fide livelihood needs. The emphasis, besides the member of the community residing in forest and depending on the forest is that the forest land must be in his use for last three generation prior to the cutoff date i.e. 13.12.2005 having bona fide livelihood needs. The plaintiffs in the suit have made a claim of their rights over the suit land as such and that it ought to have been recognized under the provisions of the Act. The lower appellate court as is seen has made necessary discussion on this aspect at page-8 of the judgment. Leaving aside the same, the above claim of the plaintiffs as laid clearly appears to be misconceived in view of the findings that they have failed to establish their claim of title by adverse possession standing with the reasons in support of such finding as discussed above. In the suit, the court is not required to examine the legality or propriety of the action of the bodies and the authorities under the Act in the matter of recognition of rights of those defendants, if any, and the subject matter being confined only to the non-recognition of such rights, if any, of the plaintiffs, there remains no scope to delve into that fact here. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants fail. 14. Resultantly the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost.