In order to establish adverse possession, the person claiming such possession must prove all the ingredients necessary for establishing adverse possession, including open, notorious, hostile, and exclusive possession for the statutory period.

P.K.Palli, J.(Oral):- The plaintiffs/appellants arc in second appeal before this Court laying challenge to the decree of reversal passed by the first appellate Court. The parties, here-in- after in this judgment, shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendant.

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the suit land based on title. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant has illegally and unauthorisedly .encroached upon the suit land measuring 2 bighas 4 bighas was some -where in the month of July, 1980 and despite several requests, the defendant has not given back possession to the plaintiffs.

3. The defendant while laying contest to the suit has denied that he hiss made any encroachment on the suit land. It was also stated by him that he was not aware about the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Alternatively a plea of adverse possession has been taken by the defendant staling that he is in possession of the snit land since the year 1961.

4. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, granted to the plaintiffs a decree as prayed for by them. The first appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court holding that the defendant who was in adverse possession of the suit land, had ripened it in title and in the situation, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs stands dismissed.

5. Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, contends that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court deserves to be set aside as there were neither any pleading in respect of the adverse possession nor any proof placed on record by the defendant. According to the learned counsel, the issue of adverse possession which was rightly decided by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs, has been wrongly set aside without any reason.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff at length and on careful perusal of the record and the impugned judgment, I find that the appeal deserves to be allowed.

7. In the plaint the plaintiffs have made a clear averments that they are owners of the suit land as per Jamabandi of the year 1981 -82. Khasra numbers have been specifically given alongwith the area. In paras 2 and 3 of the written statement filed by the defendant, it has been said that he is not aware of the ownership of a particular Khasra number as he is an illiterate person. It has been further stated that the lands of the parties are contiguous and the defendant emphatically denied that he ever encroached upon the land belonging lo the plaintiffs. It has, however, been further added that the possession of the defendant over the suit land is from the times his predecessor-in-interest. The boundaries of the two lands were fixed long back and his possession dated back to the year 1961 when Consolidation Operations wore held in the village. Towards the end of paragraph 2 of the written statement, the defendant has further said that even if the plaintiffs are found to be the owners of the suit land, their rights stand extinguished on account of adverse possession of defendant since 1961 holding it adverse to the plaintiffs.

8. The only evidence that has been placed on record by the parties is the statement of one of the plaintiffs examined as PW-1 , Kanoongo examined as PW-2 and the defendant has made his statement as DW-I .

9. Ext. P-l is the Jamabandi of the year 1981-82 showing the plaintiffs to be the owners in possession of the suit land. Ext. P-2 is the report prepared by the Kanoongo who has proved it as PW-2. According to this report, encroachment was found on demarcation on 15.10.1985. ExtP-3 is the Tatima. This is the entire evidence placed, on record by the parties.

10. So far as the ownership of the plaintiff is concerned, even the first appellate Court while reversing the judgment passed by the trial Court, has held that the plaintiff