JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - This appeal has been filed U/s.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure involving a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 11.10.1993/16.10.1993 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh in Title Appeal No.10/87 thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.04.1987 passed by the learned Addl. Munsif, Daspalla in O.S. No.4/85. 2. The appeal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law: "B. Whether easementary right of villagers for bathing in the suit Tank, Militates against the plaintiffs plea of adverse possession of the suit tank." 3. Short background involved in this case is that the appellant being the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant/appellants, the respondents herein for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and for injunction restraining the defendants-the respondents herein from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the suit land. The plaintiff/appellants case in brief is that the suit tank and its embankments appertaining to plot no.1685 and 1686 measuring Ac.1.12 and Ac.0.72 respectively situated in Mouza Puruna Daspalla. The grandfather of the plaintiff excavated the suit tank during the year 1917-18 being permitted by the then owner to excavate and use by him and since then he was in possession and enjoyment of the same by exercising right of fishery and irrigation and they have been maintaining the same by undertaking repairs. In the settlement of 1920-21 name of Gadadhar Paikray was recorded as the recorded tenant. After demise of Gadadhar Paikray his son Lingaraj and thereafter the present plaintiff the son of Lingaraj is in peaceful possession of the suit tank. Although many other tanks were transferred to the concerned Gram Panchayat, the suit tank was never transferred to Gram Panchayat. It was alleged that due to political grudge the then Sarpanch wrote a letter to the S.D.O., Nayagarh to take over possession of the suit tank for the Gram Panchayat, in the year 1978-79. The S.D.O, Nayagarh on 10.11.1978 passed order in Revenue Misc. Case No.45/78 directing the Tahasildar, Daspalla to take over the possession of the suit tank. The plaintiff preferred appeal before the Collector, Puri- defendant no.1 vide Gram Panchayat Appeal No.1/79. But however, the Collector by order dated 13.1.1979 dismissed the appeal. For the order involving Revenue Misc. Case no.45/78 and Gram Panchayat Appeal No.1/79 the records/Patta could not be prepared in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff preferred appeal before the Collector, Puri- defendant no.1 vide Gram Panchayat Appeal No.1/79. But however, the Collector by order dated 13.1.1979 dismissed the appeal. For the order involving Revenue Misc. Case no.45/78 and Gram Panchayat Appeal No.1/79 the records/Patta could not be prepared in favour of the plaintiff. But however, the plaintiff continued to remain in possession of the same. For the inconvenience created involving the right of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit tank and for such other reliefs as deemed fit and proper and right flowing through adverse possession. 4. The defendant nos.1 & 2 on their appearance filed a joint written statement and defendant no.3 filed an independent written statement, but however, both the written statements stood in one direction. The case of the defendants in some total is that the suit tank is a Government tank and the Government being the owner, title all through remained with Government and for the decision of the Court there is valid transfer of the suit tank in favour of the Khamar Sahi Gram Panchayat by the order of the competent authority. It is further pleaded by the defendants that the villagers of the Khamar Sahi Gram Panchayat and Puruna Daspalla are enjoying the suit tank for the purpose of irrigation and pisiculture. Their written statement also disclosed that there has been direction by the S.D.O. and the Collector, Puri for taking over the possession of the suit tank. In the written statement the defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff that the plaintiffs grandfather carved out the tank and was in exclusive possession and after demise of his grandfather and subsequently his father, the plaintiff came into possession of the suit tank. With the above pleading, the defendants claimed for dismissal of the suit. 5. On the basis of respective pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: "1. Is the suit maintainable? 2. Is there any cause of action to bring the suit? 3. Is the suit barred by limitation? 4. Is the suit undervalued and insufficient court fees have been paid? 5. Whether the suit tank was maintained and repaid by plaintiff? 6. Whether the suit tank reflects communal character? 7. Whether the defendants are in possession of the suit tank since long past? 8. 3. Is the suit barred by limitation? 4. Is the suit undervalued and insufficient court fees have been paid? 5. Whether the suit tank was maintained and repaid by plaintiff? 6. Whether the suit tank reflects communal character? 7. Whether the defendants are in possession of the suit tank since long past? 8. Whether the plaintiff was in peaceful possession of the suit tank since his grand fathers time and whether he has acquired title in respect of the same by adverse possession? 9. Whether the defendants have title over the suit tank? 10. Whether the grandfather of the plaintiff prepared the suit tank being encouraged by then administration? 11. Whether the requirements of section 80 C.P.C. have been complied with? 12. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed?" 6. To satisfy their respective case, the plaintiff examined four witnesses and the defendants examined five witnesses. Apart from oral evidence, the parties also produced documentary evidence. The suit was finally disposed of by the judgment and decree 18.04.1987 thereby declaring the right, title and interest over the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and further thereby restraining the defendants permanently from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the suit tank. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S. No.4/85 the defendants filed appeal vide Title Appeal No.10/87 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh. The appeal was allowed thereby reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No.4/85, hence the present appeal. 8. Shri Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant taking this Court to the pleadings of the parties, the observation, findings of the trial court and in an attempt to answer the question of law framed, contended that the appellate court failed in appreciating the nature and scope of the suit. Sri Mukherjee also contended that the findings of the lower appellate court not only remained contrary to the materials available on record but also contrary to law. Sri Mukherjee also contended that the lower appellate court failed to appreciate that mere interference with the possession of the plaintiff by the defendants on record would not be sufficient to establish that the plaintiff has been dispossessed. In fact he also challenged the findings of the lower appellate court holding that the possession of the plaintiff is permissive and not adverse as against the true owner. In fact he also challenged the findings of the lower appellate court holding that the possession of the plaintiff is permissive and not adverse as against the true owner. Further Sri Mukherjee also claimed that the lower appellate courts judgment also remains contrary to the materials available on record vide Ext.-1 that too there is wrong appreciation by the lower appellate court in recording his finding vis--vis the document at Ext.-7. It is, in the above premises, Sri Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the findings of the lower appellate remains unsustainable and thus requested this Court for allowing this Second Appeal answering the question of law framed therein in favour of the appellant. 9. Shri U.K. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel contesting the case on behalf of State-respondents on the other hand, taking this Court to the plea of the defendants in their written statement recorded hereinabove and further for the observation and findings of the lower appellate court basing upon document vide Ext.7 contended that there is no infirmity involving the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court requiring no interference of this Court. Shri Sahoo, learned Additional Standing counsel again taking this Court to the document vide Ext.7 submitted that the possession of the plaintiff being permissive the plaintiff failed in establishing his claim for right, title and interest by virtue of adverse possession. In the above circumstance, Shri Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel prayed for dismissal of the Second Appeal by answering the question framed, against the appellant. Sri Sahoo also attempted to take help of a recent judgment of Honble Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No.7764 of 2014 and SLP (C) No.8332-8333 of 2014 decided on 7.08.2019 by production of a copy of the same in Court. 10. Despite appearance of other respondents through two sets of counsels, there is however no appearance on their behalf. 11. Hearing the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the plaintiff has the pleading that the disputed tank on being permitted remaining in possession of the grandfather of the plaintiff was excavated during the year 1917-18 with permission of the competent authority to excavate at his own cost and have his own use and in the settlement record 1920-21 there is also recording of the name of his grandfather as the recorded tenant. Further there also appears, there has been direction for transfer of the disputed tank vide Revenue Misc. Case No.45/78 to the Gram Panchayat and the order has been passed on 10.11.1978 for taking over possession, which order again being confirmed by the Collector, Puri vide Gram Panchayat Appeal No.1/79, but technically plaintiff continues to be in possession and use. It appears, there remains a case to be established by the plaintiff that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land not being permitted by the true owner and for his long possession over the disputed property including the possession of his father and grandfather, to satisfy that there is a case for declaring right, title and interest by virtue of adverse possession. At the same time looking to the pleading of the defendant nos.1, 2 & 3, this Court finds, for their relying on the order of the S.D.O, Nayagarh in Revenue Misc. Case No.45/78 being confirmed by the Collector, in Gram Panchayat Appeal No.1/79, there exposed a clear case of possession of the disputed tank with the plaintiff with the permission of competent authority not only that there has been attempt for recovery of possession, this apart there is also admission by the plaintiff in clear terms that grandfather of the appellant came to possess the land on being permitted by the true owner, not only that, land record also establishes that the name of the grandfather of the appellant was recorded therein as tenant. This Court thus here observes that for the possession with permission of the true owner and further grandfather of the appellant coming to excavate the disputed site with permission of true owner use and thus plaintiff comes to possess the disputed site, for the permissive of the true owner thus possession of any length continuance thereof cannot create a right over disputed property in favour of the plaintiff. 12. This Court here taking into consideration the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal & others Vrs. Manjit Kaur & Ors. 12. This Court here taking into consideration the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal & others Vrs. Manjit Kaur & Ors. involving Civil Appeal No.7764 of 2014 decided on 7.8.2019 where the Honble Apex Court taking into account all most all decisions on the issue of claim of right by virtue of adverse possession clearly held, bundle of ingredients constitutes adverse possession and the ingredients are such as taking into account the time limitation fixed for recovery of possession at 20 years as per the Limitation Act, no suit for recovery and interference by true owner is permissible after 20 years of long possession. Further the possessor who maintains and improves the land has a more valid claim to the land than the owner who never visits or cares for the land and uses it is of utility. Further if a former owner neglects and allows gradual dissociation between himself and what he is claiming and he knows that someone else is caring by doing acts, the attachment which one develops by caring cannot be easily parted with. Looking to the factual background involved herein, this Court finds since the petitioners grandfathers possession was not only permissive but there has been time to time effort of the true owner for recovery of possession. Further, there is also no denial to the fact that the tank is also being used by the general in the locality. The appellant clearly failed in establishing that his title remains hostile to the real owner on the other hand this Court finds the possession of plaintiff, his father and also his grandfather was permissive and there is timely attempt by the true owner to evict the plaintiff and taking over possession of the disputed tank resultantly there has been initiation of some proceedings by the State. Order therein going against the petitioner, petitioners approach in higher forum also turned down. Thus law of the land on the subject rather tilts in favour of the State-respondent. As such this Court is of the opinion that there is no satisfaction of the ingredients of the claim involving right through adverse possession and the lower appellate court thus rightly appreciated the issue involved herein requiring no scope for interfering in the appellate courts judgment. 13. As such this Court is of the opinion that there is no satisfaction of the ingredients of the claim involving right through adverse possession and the lower appellate court thus rightly appreciated the issue involved herein requiring no scope for interfering in the appellate courts judgment. 13. This Court here takes into account a decision of the Hoonble apex Court in T. Anjanappa & Ors. Vrs. Somalingappa & Anr. 2006 (7)SCC 750 where the Honble apex Court in para-20 held as follows: "20. It is well-recognized proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owners title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the formers hostile action." 14. Accordingly, this Court while answering the question of law placed in para-2 hereinabove against the plaintiff appellant and thus while agreeing with the lower appellate courts judgment hold that the judgment and decree of the trial court remains unsustainable in the eye of law. The Second Appeal thus fails on confirmation of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. However in the circumstance, there is no order as to cost.