Claim of adverse possession requires acknowledgment of the property owner's title; without this, the claim is unsustainable as per established legal requirements.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das, the learned appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. H. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Bongaigaon in Title Appeal No.02/2015 thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2015 passed in Title Suit No.27/2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed.

3. The instant appeal has been taken up at the stage of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code to ascertain as to whether any substantial question of law can be formulated in terms with Section 100 (4) of the Code.

4. Mr. A. Dasgupta, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has proposed two questions of law which are mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal as A and B and submitted that the said two questions of law be formulated as substantial questions of law in the present appeal. The said two questions of law so proposed are reproduced herein under:

“A. Whether defendants acquired right of adverse possession in view of the fact that neither the deceased father of the plaintiffs took possession of the suit land which claimed to had been purchased on 03.10.1972 and the suit was instituted in the year 2006?

B. Whether right of possession of the suit land extinguished in view of section 27 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 in as much as recovery of possession on the basis of relevant sale deed is barred by limitation as contained in article 65 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963?”

5. The question which is being taken up for consideration by this Court at this stage is as to whether the two questions so proposed can at all be formulated as substantial questions of law in the instant appeal.

6. In order to ascertain the same, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant appeal.

7. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are in the same status as they stood before the learned Trial Court.

8. It is seen that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in the instant appeal had filed a suit being Title Suit No.27/2006 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon seeking declaration of right, title and interest; recovery of khas possession as well as for permanent injunction.

9. The case of the plaintiffs is that a plot of land admeasuring 0 Bighas 2 Kathas 18 Lechas covered by Khatian No.66 Dag No.599 and Myadi Patta No.36 (old) 39 (new), Dag No.599/983 (old)/195 (new) situated at village Dolaigaon Part-II, Circle Bongaigaon in the district of Bongaigaon was purchased by the plaintiffs vide a deed of sale dated 03.10.1972.

10. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after purchase, the plaintiff was delivered the possession and the plaintiff thereupon mutated his name in the revenue records and paid the land revenue. The plaintiff also stated that he had constructed a well-marked boundary having pillar and brick wall. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was working as a cashier in the State Bank of India, Goalpara since long back for which he had to reside at Goalpara with his family and he occasionally used to visit the suit land. Upon his retirement from service, when he intended to settle up at Bongaigaon by constructing a dwelling house over