The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of hostile animus and open, hostile possession. Mere possession, especially when the ownership is admitted, is not sufficient to establish adverse possession.

ORDER :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.10.2003, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Second Appeal No. 403 of 1998. By the impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.06.1998 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in Title Appeal No. 26/97.

2. The records reveal that the appellants being the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 64/89 in the court of Munsif III, Arrah (Bhojpur) filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit house situated over new Plot No. 2909 under new Khata No. 699, area measuring 10 decimals. The suit came to be decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs. The contesting defendants filed Title Appeal No. 26/97 9th before the Additional District Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah, which came to be allowed, setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court; consequently, the suit of the appellants herein was dismissed. The judgment of the District Court, i.e. the First Appellate Court, dated 30.06.1998 was confirmed by the High Court in second appeal on 17.10.2003. Thus, the unsuccessful plaintiffs are before us questioning the judgment of the High Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the disputed house was in their ownership and the khata of the property was recorded in the name of their ancestor. Since the defendants' ancestor was on friendly terms with the plaintiffs ancestor, and as plaintiffs' ancestor was in a different place for business, the defendants were permitted to occupy the disputed house. The defendants got khatian changed without notice to the plaintiffs, showing the defendants to be in possession of the disputed house. Since the defendants did not hand over possession of the property to the plaintiffs, despite many requests by the plaintiffs, the suit came to be filed.

The case of the contesting defendants is that they are the owners in possession of the suit house even prior to 1953. Their ancestor, viz. Sheomuni Rai, had friendly relations with the plaintiffs' grandfather, Pitambar Rai. At the time of the revision survey, the concerned authorities having found that the defendants are in possession of the property, R.S. Khatian was prepared in their names. R.S. Khatian was finally published in the year 1970, but the plaintiff filed the Title Suit only 19 years after its final publication and hence, the suit is barred by limitation. It is further the case of the defendants that they have become owners of the property by virtue of their adverse possession over the suit property. In other words, the defendants contended that they had perfected the title by adverse possession and therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the possession of the suit house from the defendants.

4. The only question to be decided in this appeal is, whether the First Appellate Court and the High Court were justified in concluding that the defendants have perfected the title by adverse possession over the suit property. Heard the arguments on both the sides, and perused the records at hand.

5. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the defendants have not produced any document to show that they are the owners of the suit property by purchasing the same or by acquiring the same by any mode of transfer. Also, there is nothing on record to show that the property in question is the ancestral property of the defendants. However, alternative case of the defendants that the plaintiffs were the owners of the property and had permitted the defendants' ancestor and thereafter, the defendants to be in possession of the property. In other words, the defendants do admit that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property. But the sole contention of the contesting defendants is that they have perfected the title by adverse possession, and that the suit to claim possession of the suit property is beyond the period of