The plea of adverse possession is fully covered by the issue of title, possession, and dispossession, and can be established even if the specific words "adverse possession" are not used in the pleadings.

P. K. Sarkar, J.

1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-9-1990 passed in m. T. A. No.6/45 of 1981/87 by the 2nd additional District Judge, Begusarai.

2. The appellants were defendants in the original title suit, which was filed by the plaintiff-respondents for declaration of their title and recovery of possession over the suit land described in the Schedule of the plaint.

3. The matter was heard by the learned Munsif, First Court, Begusarai, who dismissed the suit, as according to him, the plaintiff failed to prove that they have any subsisting title over the suit land. The plaintiffs thereafter filed an appeal bearing TA. No.6/45 of 1981/87 before the District Judge, begusarai, which was heard by the 2nd additional District Judge, Begusarai, and the said Court in the impugned judgment dated 22-9-1990 has found the plaintiffs claim true and reversed the judgment of the trial court and also directed the defendants to deliver possession to the plaintiffs within two months from the date of the decree, failing which the plaintiffs will be entitled to take possession through the process of Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order this Second Appeal has been filed.

4. This Second Appeal was admitted on the limited question of law as to whether even though, there was no issue pressed before the trial court in regard to the acquisition of title of the plaintiffs by an adverse possession, the court of appeal below was correct in holding that the plaintiffs acquired title to the land in question by an adverse possession. Thus this Second Appeal is limited to the aforesaid extent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from both the judgments of the trial court and also the lower appellate court it will appear that no specific issue of the fact whether the plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession, has been framed. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs also did not make any specific plea of acquiring title by adverse possession in the plaint. Thus this finding of the learned appellate court and also basing his order mainly on the aforesaid fact (adverse possession) is illegal and deserves to be set aside.

6. In order to appreciate the points in issue the brief facts of the cases of the respective parties can be stated below: the plaintiffs contended that the suit land was originally belonged to and as in possession of Biro Mian and the same was recorded in his name in the survey Khatiyan. Shaikh Auwal, son of biro Mian came in possession of the suit land after death of his father. There was arrears of rent against him for the land in suit and, therefore, the landlord, namely, Babu Jogesh Prasad and others filed rent suit against him and obtained decree against him. Thereafter the landlord got the land sold in Execution case No.812 of 1920 and purchased the two plots, himself on 24-4-1921 and got delivery of possession. Later on Shri jugeshwar Prasad settled the aforesaid two plots in favour of the plaintiffs through the registered deed dated 19-1-1938 and from that date the plaintiffs are coming in possession over the suit land.

7. At the time of vesting of zamindari the names of the plaintiffs were given in the jamabandi return by the landlord and, accordingly, Register-II was prepared in the name of the plaintiffs and they are paying rent. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have constructed one well for irrigational purposes and also planted several trees and constructed boundary wall.

8. Further case of the plaintiffs is that in the year 1957 one Jangali Sahu started laying claim over this land and a proceeding under Sec.144 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here in after to be called as "the Code")was started. That case was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs on 3-1-1957 and two plots were amalgamated on the spot for cultivation. The plaintiffs have also partitioned the suit land and the plaintiff No.1 got hal