Appellate courts substantially comply with procedural requirements if they thoroughly discuss all trial issues despite not formally framing points of determination. Claims of adverse possession must be supported by proof of clearly defined, hostile, open, and continuous possession known to the true owner.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

Heard Mr. U.B. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants and also heard Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. A. Bujarbaruah, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In this second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree, dated 22.01.2015, passed by the learned District Judge, Nalbari, in Title Appeal No.5/2013 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nalbari, in Title Suit No.02/2011. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.01.2015, the learned District Judge, Nalbari ('First Appellate Court' for short), had upheld the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2013,passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nalbari (trial court hereinafter) in T.S. No. 02 of 2011 whereby the learned Civil Judge had dismissed the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs and upheld the decree passed in the counter claim of the present respondents/defendants Nos.6 and 7.

3. For the sake of convenience and also to avoid confusion, the parties herein are referred to in the same status, as appeared in the title suit, being Title Suit No.2/2011.

4. The background facts leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as under:-

“The case of the appellants/plaintiffs is that a plot of land, measuring 2 kathas, under Dag No.961 of K.P. Patta No.322 and another plot of land measuring 1 katha, covered by Dag No.962 of K.P. Patta No.305 of village Kaljar, under Mouza- Paschim Baksa, described in the Schedule-A of the plaint, originally belonged to Late Sarat Bhagawati, the father of respondent/defendant Nos.1—4 and husband of respondent/defendant No.5, respectively. Late Sarat Bhagawati was in possession of the Schedule-A land till 1994. During the lifetime of Late Sarat Bhagawati, the plaintiffs, who are the brothers, on 11.11.1994, entered into a plot of land measuring 15 lechas (suit land) to occupy and possession, which is the western portion of the Schedule-'A' land, and the suit land is specifically described in Schedule-'B' of the plaint and having entered into possession of the suit land i.e. Schedule-'B' land, the plaintiffs developed the land by earth filling and constructed one 'Gumti' over there, and started one shop in the name and style of 'Baba Bhandar' in the said 'Gumti' and the plaintiffs also erected boundary fencing around the suit land, and since then the suit land has been under their possession till date with the knowledge of Sarat Bhagawati and his family members. The remaining portion of the Schedule-'A' land except the suit land is under possession of the defendant Nos.1—5. The plaintiffs have been continuing their business in the suit land since 11.11.1994, and thereafter, in the year 2006, after retirement of plaintiff No.1 from defence service, he renovated the shop named as 'Baba Bhandar' to a Assam type wooden house and started a grocery and stationary shop, keeping the name of the shop as 'Baba Bhandar' and until retirement of the plaintiff No.1, in the year 2006, plaintiff No.2 used to look after the business mostly over the suit land. The plaintiff No.1 also used to look after the same whenever possible and the plaintiffs also told Sarat Bhagawati that the suit land will not be given to them anymore and neither Sarat Bhagawati nor the defendant Nos. 1—5, who used to visit the suit land, raised any objection regarding the possession of the plaintiffs and construction over the suit land. Then in the year 2007, the defendant No.1, with a view to start c