This Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the two learned courts below. Appeal was admitted on 02.03.2001 on the following substantial questions of law :

(i) Whether the plaintiffs who have been dispossessed from the suit land during pendency of the Title Suit No. 30/1982 filed by the defendants are entitled to recovery of khas possession if it is established on evidence in record that they have acquired title by adverse possession.

(ii) Whether title acquired by adverse possession stood extinguished because of dis-possession of the plaintiffs from the suit land on 3.4.1989, during pendency of T.S. No. 30 of 1982.

(iii) Whether learned counsel below fell in error in deciding adversely the question of acquisition of title by adverse possession by non-consideration of relevant evidence, either oral or documentary; and

(iv) Any other substantial question of law that may arise during the course of hearing.

2. Subsequently, on 23.5.2013 in course of hearing of this appeal, another additional substantial question of law was framed and the same is quoted below :

Whether a suit for declaration of title on the basis of the claim of adverse possession is maintainable in view of the provision of section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

3. Heard Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel for plaintiffs. Also heard Mr. T.C. Khatri, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for respondents.

4. Before going to decide the substantial questions of law framed in this case, it is necessary to record the minimum factual summary of the case.

5. Three sons, namely, Binode Das, Gopal Das and Ganesh Das and their sister. Smt. Maheswari Devi being the legal heirs of Late Pandu Badyafcar, filed Title Suit No.66/1989 in the court of learned Munsiff in Tezpur, against the respondents as plaintiffs, praying for declaration of their right, title and interest by way of adverse possession, and for recovery of possession and also for injunction restraining the defendants and others, who may attempt to enter into the suit land after such recovery of possession. The case of the plaintiffs was that their predecessor, namely, Pandu Badyakar possessed the suit land in the year 1916-17 to the knowledge of the original owner and was residing there by constructing house. Pandu Badyakar and his wife Bina Das enjoyed possession over the land for a period of 66 years without any obstruction from anybody and in the process they claimed that their predecessor (Pandu Badyakar) had acquired title by way of adverse possession and correspondingly the same of the original owner got extinguished. But on 7.2.1982 when Pandu Badyakar died, Arun Patangia (the predecessor of the defendant's No. 1 to 5) forcefully occupied the land ousting the legal heirs of Pandu Badyakar from the suit land and demolishing their houses. The legal heirs of Panda Badyakar lodged a complaint before the court of Judicial Magistrate at Tezpur on 8.2.1982 and CR case No. 105 of 1982 was registered under sections 427/448/352/506, IPC and the accused, Arun Patangia, (predecessor of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5) was arrested. At that time the plaintiff No. 1 and his mother Bina Das claimed to have reconstructed the house, but the same was again demolished by the predecessor of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5. She could not re-enter the suit land any more as police restrained both the sides in view of a proceeding before the Executive Magistrate at the instance of the predecessor of the defendants. However, the defendants did not have any right, title and interest thereto although Arun Patangia sent a notice to the mother of the present plaintiffs on 26.2.1982 asking her to vacate the suit land on the ground that she had failed to pay rent. By giving reply notice, the claim of the notice given was refuted but Arun Patangia, the predecessor of the defendants, as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 30

Click Here to Read the rest of this document