Adverse possession requires proof of animus possidendi, open and continuous possession, and hostile possession. Evidence is crucial to support the claim of adverse possession.

SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1. Initially two second appeals were preferred from a common judgment, by which the counter claim filed by respondent was decreed and the suit filed by the present appellants was dismissed. Both the appeals were affirmed by First Appellate Court.

2. Thereafter, the plaintiff/appellants do not like to pursue the second appeal by which his suit was dismissed, but he pursued second appeal in which the defendant's/respondent's counter claim was decreed followed by eviction order.

3. Doubting the correctness and legality of the said judgments of the learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff/appellant has filed this second appeal.

4. Factual scenario is required to be recapitulated. Shorn of unnecessary details, the plaintiff's case is such that their predecessor one Mumtaz Ali, who happens to be the husband of plaintiff No. 1 and the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4, are the children of the said Mumtaz Ali since deceased. The suit land bearing survey No. 111/15 measuring total area of 2000 Sq. Ft. was originally purchased by the Grand Mother of the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4, who happens to be the mother-in-law of the plaintiff No. 1. In the year 1965 the father of the plaintiff/appellant Nos. 2 to 4 went to mainland and at that time he asked the husband of his sister namely Abdul Karim to take care of the said land. In the year 1972, the said Mumtaz Ali came back from mainland and started residing with the present appellant and his children in the said land. It has been specifically pleaded that the plaintiff had demolished the old structure constructed by her Grand Mother and since then the appellants are residing on the suit land. After the sad demise of Mumtaz Ali, the appellants approached Abdul Karim to get the land mutated in their name and initially Abdul Karim agreed to, but ultimately did not adhere to the request of the plaintiff/appellants. Then the plaintiff decided to settle her claim with Abdul Karim and also decided to take steps for mutation of the land. Subsequently they came to know that the defendant/respondent purchased the land in the year 1986, but in spite of that they are in continuous possession for a long time. He had been paying municipal rents and taxes and also had undertaken to repair the said building and also made addition and alteration thereto. They got water tap connection and had been paying water bill for the same. In the year 2003 the appellant suddenly came to know that the respondent is trying to sell the land to some third person and when they approached the defendant, the said defendant/respondent categorically asserted that she had every right to sell the same. According to the appellants, they are in possession since 1972 and as a result, they have acquired a perfect title under the style of adverse possession.

5. After getting notice from the learned Trial Court, the defendant/respondent appeared therein and contended that she has purchased the suit land long back from Abdul Karim and has been in possession. She further averred that she was a teacher and had been imparting education in government schools and her job was transferable in nature. She has claimed the title of the property as well as by filling counter claim she wanted to get the property and also to evict the plaintiff/appellants from the suit property. Her specific case is such that she has purchased the property from Abdul Karim after observing the codal formalities at a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- and it was duly registered before the Sub Registrar on 14.02.1986 She also asserted that before selling the land, the original owner Abdul Karim obtained sale permission from the competent authority in 1984. She has mutated her name by the order of Tehsildar and before mutation Tehsildar has affixed notice in Form J dated 25.04.1986 The specific case of the defendant is also such that the appellant No. 1 had approached her for accommodation because she could not afford to mainta