JUDGMENT :

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated February 12th & 15th, 2015 respectively, in Title Suit 67/2010, Defendant as Appellant preferred Title Appeal No. 13/2016 in the court of learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Howrah, and after hearing said appeal, learned First Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal on contest by judgment and decree dated December 22, 2016, holding that Defendant/Appellant is a licensee and he has failed to prove his case of adverse possession and as such he is liable to be evicted from the suit property and thereby affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Howrah, in aforesaid Title Suit No. 67/2010.

2. Plaintiffs case in a nutshell is that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the ‘A’ schedule property and ‘B’ schedule is part of ‘A’ schedule property. As per request made by the defendant, the plaintiff permitted the defendant to stay in a room in ‘B’ schedule as licensee without license fee on the assurance given by defendant that he will vacate ‘B’ schedule suit property and will deliver possession within short period. On 17.04.2010 plaintiff orally revoked license given to the defendant in respect of ‘B’ schedule noted suit property and thereafter filed Title Suit No. 67/2010, with a prayer for eviction of licensee and for permanent injunction. Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement contending that plaintiff is not absolute owner and occupier of the suit property and he also denied the plaintiff’s claim that ‘A’ schedule property to the suit originally belonged to plaintiff’s father Sufal Chandra Manna or after his death plaintiff has become the owner of the suit property as his legal heir. Along with the written statement defendant filed counter claim contending that municipal holding No. 346 G.T. Road, (south), Howrah is a big property and numerous persons are residing in different parts of the said holding. The defendant further contended that in or about 01.07.1981, he took possession of ‘B’ schedule property measuring 94.5 square feet at holding No. 346 G.T. Road, (south), Howrah, just beside the room of one Bhaskar Chowdhury and thereafter he constructed one room and varanda and continuing to remain in possession of said 94.5 square feet (approximately) of the Bastu Land together with one room and varanda situated at 346 G.T. Road, (south), Howrah, for a continuous period of 28 years un-interruptedly as his own property within the knowledge of the true owner of the property as well as within the knowledge of the plaintiff and plaintiff has got no right, title, interest over the said property of the defendant. The description of ‘A’ schedule property is indefinite. Ansar Ali Sardar, Afsar Ali Sardar, Golemur Nessa Bibi, Nurfan Nessa Bibi, Sukur Md. Mollah, Rosun Ali, Iddrish Ali Sardar, Nurulhuda Sardar, Anima Khatun, Sahidan Bibi are true owners of the said ‘A’ schedule property. Accordingly by way of counter claim defendant prayed for declaration of his absolute ownership and occupation in respect of schedule to counter claim and also for permanent injunction. Plaintiff contested said counter claim by filing written statement contending that the true owners as alleged by defendant are not made parties in defendants counter-claim and surprisingly defendant claimed title by way of adverse possession against plaintiff, whom he does not admit as owner. Moreover the description of property given in counter claim are concocted and as such counter claim is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

3. On the basis of the pleading submitted by both the parties learned Trial Court framed as many as ten issues. Plaintiff adduced evidence and has also filed and proved khajna dakhila, certified copy of C.S. recording, R.S. recording and other relevant documents which are marked as exhibit and defendants also adduced evidence as DW1 and one Sham