JUDGMENT D. Dash, J. - The Appellant, by filing this Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'the Code') has assailed the judgment dated 12.01.2005 followed by the decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nabarangpur in Title Appeal No.25 of 2000 in the First Appeal filed under section 96 of the Code. By the same, the First Appeal having been dismissed, the Court below has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2000 and 11.5.2000 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nabarangpur in Title Suit No.12 of 1996. 2. Be it stated here that the Appellant (Plaintiff) having died during pendency of this Appeal, his legal representatives have come to be substituted and are now pursuing the present Appeal against the Respondent (Defendant). 3. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit. 4. The Plaintiff has filed the Suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land with further prayer of recovery of possession. It is his case that one Goria Kandha, a member of Scheduled Tribe community, was the erstwhile owner of suit land which stood recorded in his name in the record of right published in the year 1955 (Ext.2). It is stated that after the death of said Goria, his son, namely, Somanath Kandha succeeded to his property and sold the suit land to one Arjuna Bhotra, a member of Scheduled Tribe Community in the year 1983 by registered sale deed (Ext.3). Said Arjuna obtained permission as required under the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956 (hereinafter called as 'Regulation 2 of 1956'') under Ext.1 from the competent Authority (Ext.G) sold the said suit land to the Plaintiff by executing registered sale deed dated 26.08.1884. According to the case of the Plaintiff, the Defendant has no manner of right, title and interest over the suit land and he being a purchaser of the land adjoining to the suit land which belonged to Rama Gouda, created disturbances in the possession of the suit land by the Plaintiff. The Defendant had purchased the said land adjoining the suit land by registered sale deed dated 10.02.1968 (Ext.A). The Defendant had purchased the said land adjoining the suit land by registered sale deed dated 10.02.1968 (Ext.A). The dispute with regard to possession over the land between the parties having taken place in the month of February, 1986. there arose a situation of breach of peace which ultimately led to initiation of a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Cr.P.C.'). The Executive Magistrate, in Misc. Case No.190 of 1986, made the inquiry as provided in Cr.P.C. The Plaintiff as well as the Defendant advanced the claim as to their respective possession over the suit land. The Executive Magistrate, in concluding the said proceeding by order dated 20.07.1992, declared the possession of the Defendant over the suit land. The Plaintiff, being aggrieved by the said order of declaration of the possession as passed by the Executive Magistrate in that proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. had carried a revision to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore. The Revisional Court, by order dated 25.08.19954, refused to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate. The Plaintiff then filed the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land in claiming his right to possess the suit land as such. Given further detail in the plaint, the Plaintiff has stated that the Defendant claimed that he has purchased the suit land with other lands from Rama Gouda and three others since 10.02.1968 as under Khata No.321, Plot No.112 measuring an area of Ac.2.88 cents as per the description and boundary given by him which is false and those aspects have not been properly delved into by the Executive Magistrate in deciding as to which of the party is in possession of the suit land either on the date of preliminary order or within two months next before the same and therefore the order as to declaration of the possession as passed is questioned as to be not in order. So, the Plaintiff asserts that such possession of the Defendant is unauthorized and the Plaintiff when has the title and is the rightful owner of the suit land, is entitled to possess the same. 5. So, the Plaintiff asserts that such possession of the Defendant is unauthorized and the Plaintiff when has the title and is the rightful owner of the suit land, is entitled to possess the same. 5. The Defendant, in his written statement, while traversing the plaint averments, has asserted that the Plaintiff's claim about the purchase of the land under Plot No.110, Khata no.181 by registered sale deed from one Goria Kandha by registered sale deed is false. It is stated that the possession over the suit land has been rightly declared by the Executive Magistrate in the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. in the Misc. Case No.190 of 1986. It is his case that he purchased the suit land along with the land under Plot No.112 pertaining to Khata No.321 in Mouza- Nabarangpur from that Rama Gouda son of Baraja Gouda, Keshaba Gouda son of Rama Gouda, Harish Chandra Gound son of Keshaba Gouda and Kailash Goud by registered sale deed dated 10.02.1968. It is asserted that said vendors had delivered the possession of the lands under Khata Nos.110 and 112 to him on said date of sale, i.e, 10.02.1968. It is stated that since then he is in possession of the suit land all along by raising crops thereon. It is his case that the possession of the land was delivered to him strictly in accordance with and as per the boundaries stated in the sale deed; however, due to ignorance, there had been an omission to mention/indicate Plot No.110 in the said sale deed. According to the Defendant, there was no person in the name of Goria Kandha and he was never in possession of the suit land prior to the sale as stated by the Plaintiff. Rather the suit land was possession of Rama Gouda and others, i.e, his vendors. It is his case that the Plaintiff has created the document in the name of that Arjuna Bhotra and taking advantage of the entry in the record of right, permission for sale of the land being applied for and granted; he has obtained the deed in his favour. Arjuan is said to be a resident of Village-Mahul Padar. It is stated that he had never been in possession of the suit land. Arjuan is said to be a resident of Village-Mahul Padar. It is stated that he had never been in possession of the suit land. The Defendant claims to have purchased the land in the year 1968 and possessed the same according to the boundaries, i.e, East-Road, West-Dongor of Govinda Brahma, North-Top of Trinath Gantayat and Sout-Dongor of Majhia Kandha. It is stated that he is the absolute owner and in rightful possession of the suit land as such. Alternatively, he having been in open, peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession for much more than required period, he also asserted to have perfected title by adverse possession. With all these abvoe, the Defendant prayed for non-suiting the Plaintiff. 6. The Trial Court, on the above rival pleadings framed in total eight (8) issues. As it appears, the crucial issues are Issue No.3 and 5, which concern with the Plaintiff's claim as to purchase of the suit land from Arjuna by registered sale deed dated 24.08.1984 and his right, title and interest over the suit land. Both the issues having been answered by the Trial Court in favour of the Plaintiff, the suit stood decreed granting all the reliefs as prayed for to the Plaintiff. 7. The first Appellate Court has held that the documents, i.e, Ext.C and E relied upon by the Defendant do not reveal that there was no person named Goria Kandha. It has also on detail analysis of evidence on record has recorded that the document (Ext.A) which is the basis of claim of the Defendant in claiming the right over the suit land does not cover the suit land. Delving upon the claim of adverse possession, the lower Appellate Court has recorded the answer that the Defendant has failed to establish the same through evidence in fulfilling the essential ingredients thereof. Thus in the First Appeal, carried by the aggrieved Defendant, those answers recorded by the Trial Court again being reiterated, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court have been confirmed. 8. Thus in the First Appeal, carried by the aggrieved Defendant, those answers recorded by the Trial Court again being reiterated, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court have been confirmed. 8. The present Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- '(A) Whether the finding of the courts below that the Plaintiff has proved his over title over the suit property is against the weight of evidence on record and the outcome of perverse appreciation of evidence; and (B) Whether the courts below, on the face of the rival pleadings, were called upon to frame any issue on the question of acquisition of title by adverse possession by the Defendant and accordingly, were under the obligation to render the decision and that the failure thereof has caused grave prejudice to the Defendants.' 9. Heard Mr.S.S.Rao, Learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr.B.Baug, Learned Counsel for the Respondent at length. Perused the judgments passed by the Courts below. Carefully gone through the oral as well as the documentary evidence let in by the Parties. 10. The concurrent finding of the Courts below that the Plaintiff has the title over the suit land and that the Defendant has failed to prove his claim of title in so far as the suit land is concerned are questioned here in this Appeal. The Plaintiff has brought the suit after being unsuccessful in a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. where the Defendant has been declared to be in possession of the suit property as on the date of the preliminary order and is possessing the suit land. In such a suit, as per the settled position of law, the Plaintiff has to establish his subsisting title first and upon said declaration, he becomes entitled to possess the same and the order of the Executive Magistrate declaring the possession would no more stand to hold the field in reality as in that event the decree passed in the Suit would have the superiority and sole recognition/acknowledgement in the eye of law. Thus, here it is to be seen how far the Plaintiff's claim title over the suit land has been established. The Courts below made analysis of evidence and arrived at a conclusion on the score. Thus, here it is to be seen how far the Plaintiff's claim title over the suit land has been established. The Courts below made analysis of evidence and arrived at a conclusion on the score. The Plaintiff's case is that he has purchased the suit land by registered sale deed dated 26.08.1884 from one Arjuna Bhotra who had purchased the land from Somanath Kandha, the son of Goria Kandha. Then this Goria was the recorded owner of the suit land in the record of right of the year 1955, which has been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.2. The sale deed executed by Somanath Kanda in favour of Arjuna Bhotra has been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.3. The Courts below have concurrently found the sale deeds to have been duly proved. First one has been executed by that Somanath Kanda and his minor son being so represented by him as the father guardian. It finds mention therein that they being the son and grandson of Goria Kandha, the true owner, have inherited the same and as such being the rightful owners have sold the land to Arjuna Bhotra. Next, the sale deed executed by Arjuna Bhotra in favour of the Platintiff has been proved and marked as Ext.3. This registered deed of sale has come into existence after about sixteen (16) years and not so quickly so as to give rise to an adverse inference in mind in support of the involvement of the Plaintiff in that matter. The record of right standing in the name of Goria Kandha after the final purchase of the land by the Plaintiff has been mutated in his favour under Ext.4 which contains the land assigned with the very plot no.110. It is not in dispute that said land is the land in suit and was also the subject matter of proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. where the parties lay their claim and counter claim. It is also not in dispute that the total land which stood recorded under three plots in the name of Goria Kandha under Ext.2 has come to be so recorded in the name of the Plaintiff. The purchase made by the Plaintiff is also with prior permission of the competent authority as required under the provision of Regulation 2 of 1956 since his vendor was a member of Scheduled Tribe community. The purchase made by the Plaintiff is also with prior permission of the competent authority as required under the provision of Regulation 2 of 1956 since his vendor was a member of Scheduled Tribe community. The permission letter is (Ext.1) and it is seen that the permission had been granted by the Officer on Special Duty, Nabarangpur, which has been duly accepted by the Sub-Registrar in acting thereupon in registering the sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the Plaintiff. The Trial Court has made detail discussion as to the execution of both the sale deeds and their registration. The permission having been taken on 13.08.1984, the Vendor, Arjun Bhotra has sold the land to the Plaintiff on 24.08.1984 and there appears no such long gap between the two so as to infer/comment anything as to its effectiveness. When it has been stated in the letter of permission that the consideration for the purpose should not be less than Rs.10,840/-, the sale consideration for the transaction standing in favour of the Plaintiff is in conformity with the same. 11. Given a glance at the evidence with regard to the proof tendered from the side of the Defendant in establishing his competing claim over the suit land, it is seen that the Defendant has stated that there was no person named Goria Kandha and the preparation of record of right in his name in respect of the suit land is wholly erroneous. The Defendant's case is that he has purchased the property from one Rama Gouda in the year 1968 by registered sale deed (Ext.A). Interestingly, this Ext.A refers to plot no.112 under khata no.321. The suit land is under plot no.110. The Plaintiff has proved that this land under plot no.112 was recorded in the name of Rama Gouda, son of Bairagi as per the record of right of the year 1955 which is marked as Ext.10. The Defendant is not denying that he has not purchased the land under plot no.112. On the other hand, it is his case that the boundary given in respect of the land under plot no.112 is the boundary in respect of both plots, i.e, plot no.110 and plot no.112 taken as a compact block. The Defendant is not denying that he has not purchased the land under plot no.112. On the other hand, it is his case that the boundary given in respect of the land under plot no.112 is the boundary in respect of both plots, i.e, plot no.110 and plot no.112 taken as a compact block. Although it is said that Rama Gound was also the owner of the land under plot no.110, no document has been proved form the side of the Defendant to that effect. There is also no explanation of any sort that when the sale deed in favour of the Defendant contains plot no.112, how could this plot no.110 stood omitted and it is also not explained as to why no step on that account has ever been taken by the Defendant thereafter during the life time of his vendor or from his successors in interest. To say that the description of the boundary given in the said sale deed relates to plot no.110 and plot no.112 being taken together in compact block was not a mistake and then the reality, the evidence is wanting and that could have only been established on proof of title of Rama Gouda over the suit land. It having been found that the very plot under plot no.110 was not recorded in the name of Rama Gouda and that is not a small piece of land; it is difficult to fathom for a moment that he had the alienable right over the said land and as such did so and the non-mention of that plot of land under plot no.110 was an inadvertent omission/mistake. It measures an area of Ac.2.710 decimals whereas the land under plot no.112 concerns with bigger area of Ac.2.880 decimals. Moreover, in the absence of proof of title of land in favour of that Rama Gouda over the land under plot no.110 even if the claim of omission of that plot in the said sale deed of the Defendant is accepted to be a bilateral one and a bona fide mistake and it is taken that the vendor had intended to sell and in fact sold and the vendees had intended to purchase and purchased; which finds expressed in the boundary; it makes no sense at all and its impermissible. Furthermore, said registered sale proved from the side of the Defendant and projected as the trumph card does not contain the recital as to record position as it stood then in respect of the land under plot no.110 which runs with no such explanation With such evidence on record, the Courts below having accepted the Plaintiff's case that the title over the suit land was resting with Goria Kandha in repelling the claim of competing title over the suit land as laid by the Defendant that it was Rama Gouda who was the title holder, this Court finds no reason/justification to tinker with the same. 12. Coming to the alternative plea of acquisition of title over the suit land by adverse possession taken by the Defendant; admittedly, the land under plot no.110 and plot no.112 adjoin one another. The settled position of law is that a person in order to establish his claim of acquisition of title over the land by adverse possession, has to deny the title of the true owner and claiming the ownership of said land unto himself must start to possess and continue as such openly, peacefully and continuously for more than the required/prescribed period. The most essential ingredient is the hostile animus that knowing it to be the land of another, the possessor staked his claim over the land as its owner and continued to so possess denying the title of the true owner all through and claiming to be having the ownership remained in possession as such. There is no legal strict bar to take an alternative plea of adverse possession. However, the alternative plea which wholly contradicts or in opposition to the main stand is not taken cognizance of as that is not permissible which is founded upon the strong common sense that one cannot breathe hot and cold at the same time. Here the Defendant having not admitted the title of Goria Kandha or after him, his son Somanath Kandha and when the Courts now find that the property originally belong to Goria Kandha and it had come to the hands of Somanath Kandha and then to the hands of Arjun Bhotra, a question arises as to whose ownership the Defendant denied either in beginning to possess and so denying is continuing. The Defendant is silent as to whose ownership and possession he denied, first of all in the year 1968. The Defendant is silent as to whose ownership and possession he denied, first of all in the year 1968. So, even if the possession of the suit land by the Defendant is taken to be from the year 1968 onwards, the same is of no avail to say that he has perfected the title over the suit land by such possession, as the settled position of law stands that mere long possession never matures with the claim of acquisition of title by way of adverse possession unless all the ingredients remain fulfilled although in doing so. Faced with these infirmities in the pleadings, the Courts below cannot be said to have committed any wrong in not framing the specific issue on that score. Even then, it is seen that the Courts below have not completely turned their eyes to such a case as placed from the side of the Defendant or deaf ears to the contention raised on the score by the Defendant. The evidence on the score has been discussed and that claim of the Defendant has been negated as to have not been so established through clear, cogent and acceptable evidence which is also seen to be free from the vice of perversity. In view of all the aforesaid, the non-framing of any specific issue on that score pales into insignificance. Moreover, the Courts below having proceeded to answer the said contention by discussing the evidence, in the backdrop of the pleadings with which this Court does not find any fault; no prejudice appears to have been caused thereby to the Defendant so as to a remand of the matter on that score. The aforesaid discussion and reasons thus provide answers to the substantial questions of law against the case of the Defendant (Appellant) 13. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The Parties are directed to bear their respective cost throughout.