Adverse possession is a question of fact; Second appeal court cannot interfere with lower court's findings of fact.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated July 19, 1999 and July 22, 1999 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court at Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) in Title Appeal No. 439 of 1990 reversing the judgment and decree dated 14th September, 1990 and 3rd November, 1990 respectively passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 4th Court at Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) in Title Suit No. 119 of 1989.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff/respondent filed the suit being Title Suit No. 119 of 1989 before the learned Assistant District Judge, 4th Court at Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction against the defendants.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff/respondent stated in the plaint filed in connection. with the aforesaid title suit that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff from one, Smt. Reba Bhowmik by a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 20th january, 1970. According to the plaintiff, the suit land was/is a vacant land and the plaintiff is in possession thereof since his purchase.

( 4 ) IT has been stated by the plaintiff that being a businessman he resides far away from the suit property and taking advantage thereof, the defendants trespassed into a part or portion of the suit property in January, 1979. The said trespassed portion of the suit land has been described in Schedule 'b' to the plaint.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff described the defendants as rank trespassers and contended that the said defendants had no manner of right, title and interest in the suit property and furthermore the said defendants were also never permitted to occupy any portion of the suit property. It has been stated by the plaintiff that the defendants refused to vacate the suit property inspite of request and therefore, the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid title suit for declaration, recovery of possession of the portion of the suit property marked 'b' after evicting the defendants therefrom and also for recovery of possession of other portion of the suit property marked 'a' if the plaintiff is found out of possession of that portion too.

( 6 ) THE plaintiff further prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching or taking possession of the portion of the suit property marked 'a'. The defendants on the contrary denied all the claims and allegations made by the plaintiff and contested the suit by filing a joint written statement.

( 7 ) THE defendants specifically denied the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit property. It has been contended by the defendants that on 15th August, 1955, defendant No. 1 forcibly occupied the entire suit property and on the next date of occupation i. e. on 16th August, 1955, an agent of Jadavpur estate Private Limited along with some employees tried to enter into the suit land but the defendant No. 1 with the assistance of his other refugee friends resisted them and drove them out from the suit property and thereafter none came forward to oust the defendants from the suit property either forcibly or by initiating any legal proceeding.

( 8 ) THE defendants have specifically asserted that they are in exclusive possession of the suit property adversely, openly, continuously and with the knowledge of all for more than 12 years and thereby acquired a good marketable title therein. The defendants have further contended that Reba Bhowmick, from whom the plaintiff alleged to have purchased the suit property, had no right, title and interest over the suit property and she was not in possession of the said suit property and as such according to the defendants, delivery of possession to the plaintiff by the vendor is nothing but a falsehood. The defendants therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

( 9 ) THE learned Assistant District Judge dismissed the suit on contest. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by