Adverse possession must be clearly pleaded and proved, and possession must be hostile and in denial of the true owner's title to constitute adverse possession.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree, passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, in Title Appeal No. 08 of 2004, whereunder, the learned Addl. District Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit and thereby set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division) in Title Suit No. 19 of 2003. The Second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:-

1) Whether T.S. 19 of 2003 was barred by the principle of res judicata in view of the decision of the First Appellate Court and the High Court arising out of T.S. 3 of 1988?

2) Whether T.S. 19 of 2003 was barred by limitation?

2. Heard learned counsel Mr. A. Lodh for the defendant-appellant (hereinafter mentioned as the defendant) and learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter mentioned as plaintiff).

3. The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 19 of 2003 seeking declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint and also prayed for recovery of khas possession of the suit land.

The plaintiff contended that the suit land along with other lands measuring 0.98 acres was allotted in his name vide allotment order dated 05.12.1981 (Exhibit-1) and Khatian No. 3557 of Mauja Harua was created in his name and the total land of 0.98 acres was recorded in Plot No. 786/7336; 786/7335 and 786/7337. At the time of C.S. settlement the suit land measuring 0.25 acres was recorded in Khatian No. 3087, C.S. Plot No. 1273 and new C.S. Plot No. 1274.

It is further contended by the plaintiff that the defendant, as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 3 of 1988 in the Court of Munsiff, Dharmanagar against the plaintiff (as defendant) seeking permanent injunction in respect of the land recorded in Plot No. 1273 and 1274 and that suit was decreed on 25.08.1993. The present plaintiff who was the defendant in that suit preferred Title Appeal No. 4 of 1993 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Dharmanagar and the appeal was dismissed on 01.04.1997. Thereafter he preferred second appeal No. RSA 21 of 1999 along with a CM Application No. 42 of 1999 seeking condonation of delay and that petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the second appeal was dismissed on 14.03.2000. The plaintiff thereafter filed a review petition of 6 of 2000 in the High Court and the review petition was dismissed by order dated 26.06.2000 with further observing---"the remedy of the appellant may lie in preferring a separate suit for appropriate relief but his prayer for revival of the instant appeal cannot be permitted under the circumstances indicated above.

It is also contended by the plaintiff that the plaintiff filed objection case No. 69 and 70 under Section 43of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act (for short, TLR and LR Act) in respect of the wrong record of right of the suit land in the name of the defendant and another premananda Nama, S/o. Pulin Nama and the objection petition of the plaintiff was allowed and accordingly, the record of right was corrected. The order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer was challenged before the Director of Settlement but the Director of Settlement maintained the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in respect of the correction of record of rights in the name of the plaintiff. It is also contended by the plaintiff that in respect of Plot No. 1273, the Assistant Settlement Officer recorded a comment in Col. No. 24 showing the defendant as the forceful occupier of the land from the year 1995. The plaintiff contended that on 01.01.1995 at about 10.00 a.m. the defendant forcefully occupied the suit land by putting bamboo fencing and hence he filed the suit seeking declaration of right, title interest and for recovery of possession.

4. The defendant contested the suit by filling writte