THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5035 of 2007 ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 09.10.2007 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.29 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. 2. The petitioners herein are third parties, and the respondents 1 to 3 herein are the decree holders, and the respondents 4 to 10 herein are the judgments debtors, in the Execution Petition. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed in the executing court. 3. The decree holders filed Execution Application No.553 of 2001 under Order XXI Rule 97 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), in the executing court praying to issue show cause notice to the judgment debtors along with the third parties, for causing obstruction, and if they failed to reply to the show- cause notice, they prayed to pass appropriate orders. During enquiry, no oral or documentary evidence has been let in on behalf of the decree holders, but R.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B25 were marked on behalf of the respondents therein, and Ex.X1 was marked through third party. The executing court, accepting the contention of the third parties, arrived at a conclusion that by virtue of their documents, the third parties are in possession of the schedule properties and therefore the decree holders have no right to dispossess them from the schedule premises, and accordingly, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the decree holders filed appeal before the appellate court. By the impugned order, the appellate court came to the conclusion that mere proving possession is not enough to obstruct execution of a lawful decree by the competent court and the third parties failed to establish their right under which they are said to be in continuous possession and enjoyment over the property, and accordingly, set aside the order of the executing court. Challenging the same, the third parties preferred the present revision. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/third parties contended that in view of the fact that the petitioners have produced voluminous documentary evidence as well as ocular testimony of three witnesses, which would clearly go to show that the petitioners, who are third parties to the execution proceedings, are in possession of the schedule property since long time i.e. from 1971 onwards, and that in view of the long standing possession, they acquired title by way of adverse possession under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore they cannot be evicted except through process of execution, and hence, he prays to set aside the order of the appellate court. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 contended that mere proving possession over the schedule property for a long time, does not mean that the third parties have acquired title by adverse possession unless they established that they are in possession of the property to the knowledge of true owner; that, they have not stated in which capacity they are continuing the possession; that, in what right or authority they are in possession has not been pleaded in the pleadings or stated by the witnesses, and therefore, the appellate court rightly set aside the order of the executing court and the order under challenge needs no interference by this Court. 6. The decree holders obtained a decree of eviction of the defendants/judgment debtors in Original Suit No.31 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram and thereafter, they filed Execution Petition No.107 of 1997 for delivery of the schedule property. When Amin of Court went to the premises in question or effecting delivery, there was obstruction by the judgment debtors and third parties. Then, the decree holders moved the present application before the executing court to issue show cause notice to judgment debtors and the third parties as to why they should not be removed from the possession, and thereupon, the executing court passed the order, which has been set aside the appellate court by the impugned order. 7. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 97 of Order XXI CPC inter alia allows a decree holder of immovable property who is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of such property to make an application to the executing court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. No doubt, the third party obstructers have filed documents Exs.B1 to B25, which would clearly go to show that their continuous possession and enjoyment over the property right from 1971 onwards. The same has been accepted by the appellate court also. But, mere continuous possession and enjoyment of property, however long, by itself, is not a ground to infer that the third parties acquired title by adverse possession of the property. That possession must be adverse to the real owner. They have not stated in which capacity or under which right they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. 8. There cannot be any doubt that in order to claim acquisition of title by adverse possession, the same must be hostile as its inception and possession in order to be adverse must be continuous, hostile and open to the knowledge of the true owner. Mere possession of a property for a long time does not enure to the benefit of the third parties so as to squat on the property forever. The documents filed by the third parties in the executing court do not reveal as to under what right or interest they are continuing in possession of the schedule property. So, in the absence of any evidence on record as to the prima facie right of the third parties to continue in possession of the property, mere possession does not give rise to any right to obstruct the execution of the decree, which is validly passed against the judgment debtors. The claim of the petitioners is ex facie unsustainable. Therefore, the appellate court rightly set aside the order of the executing court and the order under challenge does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this court. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioners under law. No costs. --------------------- 8.2.2011 (K.C.Bhanu, J.) DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5035 of 2007 8.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5035 of 2007 8.2.2011 Between: Bandaru Sanyasi Raju & others …Appellants And P.V.G. Raju & others …Respondents