The central legal point established in the judgment is the misinterpretation of adverse possession and the legal requirements for proving adverse possession, emphasizing the need for open assertion of hostile title and uninterrupted possession.

JUDGMENT :

1. Judgment and decree dated 7th August, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Bankura in Title Appeal No.97 of 2002 affirming the judgment and decree dated 7th June, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Bankura in Title Suit No.53 of 1993 is under challenge in the instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter 'the CPC').

2. One Amulya Ratan Mandal, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants filed Title Suit No.53 of 1993 praying for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents asserting the following facts:-

3. One Srinath Rakhit and others were the original owners of plot No.1073 of mouza Jhantipahari in the District of Bankura. Srinath instituted Title Suit No.125 of 1926 for partition of his share against his co-sharers. The said suit was decreed by the learned subordinate judge, Additional Court, Bankura. By virtue of the decree passed in the said partition suit, Srinath exclusively became the owner of 9 bighas, 6 kathas and 9 chataks of land. Srinath died sometimes prior to 1950 leaving behind only married daughter, named, Damini Dasi. Damini had four sons namely, Radhanath, Amulya Ratan, Prafulla Kumar and Bibhuti Bhusan. After the death of Srinath, Damini acquired life interest in the said property, while her four sons become reversioners. By a registered deed of sale dated 16th November, 1951, Damini and her sons transferred 1.12 acres of land out of 1.31 acres of land in plot No.1073 to one Ram Kumar Kundu. Remaining .19 decimal of land remained under possession of Damini and her sons. This .19 decimal of land is the suit property and described as such herein below. It is further case of the plaintiffs/appellants that by an amicable partition with Ram Kumar Kundu, Damini and her sons were in possession of the suit property on the north western portion of plot No.1073. Suit property was subsequently butted and bounded by pucca boundary wall raised by Damini and her sons. Subsequently, the said Ram Kumar Kundu expired and his legal heirs sold out entire 1.12 acres of land situated in plot No.1073 in favour of defendants/respondents No.1-4. After purchase, the respondents claimed ownership of entire 1.31 acres of land denying the title and possession of the appellants. So was the suit.

4. The defendants/respondents contested the suit by filing written statement wherein and whereunder they denied entire allegation made out by the plaintiffs/appellants against them. It is however admitted by the defendants/respondents that Ram Kumar Kundu purchased 1.12 acres of land with specific boundary from Damini and her sons and the remaining portion of the land in plot No.1073, being the suit property, was retained by the said Damini and her sons. Subsequently by an oral purchase, Ram Kumar Kundu purchased the said 19 decimal of land from one of the co-sharers, namely Kalipada Rakshit. After purchase entire 1.31 acres of land was bounded by boundary wall by Ram Kumar Kundu and he started a business of husking mill on the said plot of land. However, the suit property was recorded wrongly in RS Record of Rights in the name of Damini Dasi. Subsequently, it was rectified by the competent authority and entire 1.31 acres of land were recorded in the name of Ram Kumar Kundu. According to respondents, Ram Kumar Kundu had been possessing the suit property openly, uninterruptedly and adversely against the interest of the original owners, namely, Damini and her sons and thereby, they acquired good and indefeasible title over the suit property by adverse possession. The respondents became the owners of entire 1.31 acres of land inclusive of suit property by purchase.

5. The learned trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds:-

i. That the plaintiffs/appellants failed to prove possession over the suit property.

ii. Since the plaintiffs/appellants failed to take legal recourse for re