JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J - This appeal is by the plaintiffs. The suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 2. Case of the plaintiffs was that they were in possession of Schedule-A land. The defendants had encroached upon a portion of land and constructed a house over it. In the village meeting, the defendants agreed to pay the price of the land. Thereafter, defendants filed a mutation case to mutate the encroached land along with the land appertaining to Hal Plot No.233 Ac.0.57 dec. in their names. The Tahasildar, Sundargarh allowed the mutation case in respect of Hal Plot No.233 measuring an area of Ac.0.57 dec., but rejected the mutation case in respect of the suit land. The defendants claimed that their father had purchased the suit land along with the land measuring Ac.0.57 dec. from one Jamlal Munda, brother of the father of plaintiff no.1, in the year 1946. The defendants had not paid the consideration. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. Defendants entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that their father Mangra Munda had purchased the suit land along with the land measuring Ac.0.57 dec. from one Jamlal Munda in the year 1946 for a valid consideration. After death of their father, they were in possession of the same. They were paying rent to the Government and holding tax to the Sundargarh Municipality. They were in possession of the suit land from the year 1946 openly, peacefully, continuously and to the knowledge of the plaintiffs for more than the statutory period and as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. Parties led evidence, both oral and documentary, in support of their case. Learned trial court dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the defendants had perfected title by way of adverse possession. Unsuccessful plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.12 of 1993 before the learned District Judge, Sundargarh, which was eventually dismissed. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos.1(b), 1(c) and 2 of the appeal memo. The same are - "1(b). Unsuccessful plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.12 of 1993 before the learned District Judge, Sundargarh, which was eventually dismissed. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos.1(b), 1(c) and 2 of the appeal memo. The same are - "1(b). Can one of the co-sharer maintain suit to eviction of trespassers for the joint interest of all the co-sharer family members and does non-rejoinder of Braja Munda will entail dismissal of suit. 1(c) For that is the sale in 1946 valid as according to the Revenue Law of Gangapur State prevalent, at that time, no raiyat was permitted to sale the land without prior permission of State Authorities which was effected through mutation proceeding to be duly approved by Dewan and his Sub-Divisional Revenue Authorities and in the present case no such permission for sale was taken. 2. For that, the point of law that arises for consideration that the courts below relied on rent receipts, which do not relate to suit land and the findings on such error of record can not establish title." 6. Heard Mr. Debasis Panigrahi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Budhiram Das on behalf of Mr. N.C. Pati, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit property belongs to the plaintiffs. The defendants have failed to substantiate the plea of oral sale. There is no evidence on record that the defendants have perfected title by way of adverse possession. 8. Per contra, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plaintiffs had sold the suit land to the defendants for a valid consideration in the year 1946. It was an oral sale. From the date of purchase, the defendants were in possession of the suit land peacefully, continuously and to the hostile animus of the plaintiffs for more than the statutory period and as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. Both the courts below concurrently held that the defendants had perfected title by way of adverse possession. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. 9. The claim of title to the property and adverse possession are in terms contradictory. In Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and others Vrs. Balwant alias Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil (dead) By Lrs. Both the courts below concurrently held that the defendants had perfected title by way of adverse possession. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. 9. The claim of title to the property and adverse possession are in terms contradictory. In Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and others Vrs. Balwant alias Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil (dead) By Lrs. and heirs and others, (1995) 2 SCC 543 , the apex Court made an indepth analysis of claim of title and claim to adverse possession over the property. The apex Court held : "Where possession can be referred to a lawful title, it will not to 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. Therefore, a person who enters into possession having a lawful title, cannot divest another of that title by pretending that he had no tide at all." 10. The apex Court in the case of L.N. Aswathama and another v. P. Prakash, (2009) 13 SCC 229 , held : "To establish a claim of title by prescription, that is, adverse possession for 12 years or more, the possession of the claimant must be physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding twelve years. It is also well settled that long and continuous possession by itself would not constitute adverse possession if it was either permissive possession or possession without animus possidendi. The pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Unless the person possessing the property has the requisite animus to possess the property hostile to the title of the true owner, the period for prescription will not commence." 11. The instant case may be examined from the anvil of the decisions cited supra. Learned appellate court held that the defendants had constructed a house over the suit land. They used to pay holding tax. It discarded the evidence of the plaintiffs in one sentence that "their evidence does not inspire any confidence". The instant case may be examined from the anvil of the decisions cited supra. Learned appellate court held that the defendants had constructed a house over the suit land. They used to pay holding tax. It discarded the evidence of the plaintiffs in one sentence that "their evidence does not inspire any confidence". On the basis of the rent receipt, it came to hold that "Thus, the sale of the land along with other lands to the father of the respondents are believable." The findings are based on surmises and conjectures. On scanning of the evidence on record, it is evident that the defendants have not substantiated the plea of oral sale. As held by the apex Court in the decisions cited supra, claim to title and adverse possession is mutually destructive. The courts below did not delve deep into the matter. 12. The courts below fell into patent error of law in holding that one of the co-sharer is not a party to the suit. In Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagannath and others, (1976) AIR SC 2335, the apex Court held that jurisprudentially it is not correct to say that a coowner of a property is not its owner. He owns every part of the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property. A co-owner is as much an owner of the entire property as any sole owner of a property is. In India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and others v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by LRs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.) and others, (2004) 3 SCC 178 , the apex Court held that one of the coowners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co-owners. This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other coowners. The consent of other co-owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed in spite of their disengagement. It was further held that a suit filed by a co-owner is maintainable in law. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 13. A priori, the impugned judgments are set aside. It was further held that a suit filed by a co-owner is maintainable in law. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 13. A priori, the impugned judgments are set aside. The appeal is allowed. The suit is decreed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed