Adverse possession must be open, adverse to the owner, and with the intention to possess the land adversely.

Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.

1. The appellants, the plaintiffs in the suit, have preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Court No. 3), West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 45 of 1996 whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment and decree dated 2-5-1996 and 9-5-1996 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Agartala, West Tripura in T.S. 239 of 1983 wherein the suit was partly allowed and accordingly decreed.

2. Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Acherjee, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the respondents.

3. The following facts need to be noticed for proper understanding of the controversy between the parties.

The appellants as plaintiffs filed the Title Suit No. 239 of 1983 In the Court of Munslff, which was subsequently designated as Civil Judge, Junior Division, Agartala, West Tripura, for declaration of title over the suit land of Schedule-A and also for declaration as Bargadar in the suit land of Schedule-B and for a decree of perpetual injunction on the plea that one Kshirode Ch. Sen and his brothers were the original owner of Jote No. 19 of Mouja-Malaynagar under Sadar Tahshil and the said Kshirode Ch. Sen sold out the suit land to one Kalipada Chakraborty who again sold out the same to Durgesh Ch. Das, the predecessor in interest of the defendants and from Durgesh Ch. Das, predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, namely, Braja Gopal Goswami purchased the Schedule-A land measuring 5 kanies vide registered deed dated 3-7-1956. After purchase of the aforesaid land, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs constructed dwelling house on the Schedule-A land and possessed the same by living therein which has been recorded in the present survey settlement vide Parcha No. 292 in the name of the plaintiffs.

4. After the death of the predecessor in Interest of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs continued to possess the said Schedule-A land by residing thereupon and by growing vegetables on the rest portion of the land. It is stated in the plaint that after the sale of the Schedule-A land, the predecessor in interest of the defendants left Agartala and permanently settled at Kulai Bazar, North Tripura. Before leaving Agartala, the said predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs as Bargadar In respect of the Schedule-B land measuring about 7.02 acres.

5. The predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs on being appointed as Bargadar of the Schedule-B land possessed the same and started cultivation thereupon. He also used to give the share of the crops of the Schedule-B land to the predecessor in interest of the defendants.

6. During the pendency of the suit, after filing the written statements by the defendants, the plaintiffs on 11-5-1994 amended the plaint withdrawing the plea of Bargadar claiming that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs possessed the Schedule-B land continuously and by adverse possession, he perfected his title over the said land and after the death of the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs possessed the said suit land in continuation of the possession of their predecessor only adversely in hostile assertion of their jote rights and they have been continuing in such possession and valuable jote right accrued to the plaintiffs over the Schedule-B land.

7. The defendants by way of filing the written statements denied the fact of sale of Schedule-A land by their predecessors in interest in favour of the predecessors in interest of the plaintiff, rather they claimed that they were in possession of the suit land. They also denied the plea of the plaintiffs that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs was engaged by their predecessors in interest as Bargadar in respect of