The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and unequivocal evidence of hostile possession and denial of the rightful owner's title to establish adverse possession. The judgment also emphasizes the burden of proof on the plaintiff and the importance of continuity, publicity, and extent of possession.

This second appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2011 and 11.08.2011 respectively passed by learned District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Title Appeal No.15 of 2011, whereunder, the learned District Judge set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2011 and 08.04.2011 respectively, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Title Suit No.11 of 2010.

2. The second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the appellant as plaintiff acquired title by adverse possession to the suit land?”

3. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. S. Deb, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Ratan Dutta for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman and Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee for the respondents.

4. The appellant as plaintiff(hereinafter mentioned as plaintiff) instituted Title Suit No.11 of 2010 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, North Tripura, Kailashahar seeking declaration that he acquired right, title and interest in the suit land, RSA NO.68 OF 2011 Page 3 of 24 described in the Schedule of the plaint, by way of adverse possession.

It is contended by the plaintiff that the suit land originally belonged to one Firuz Ali, the predecessor of defendant Nos.1 to 5 and the plaintiff entered into possession of the suit land on 08.02.1990 and constructed two huts and a sanitary latrine in the suit land, planted various fruit trees and possessing the same continuously and uninterruptedly denying right, title and interest of the original owner within the full knowledge of the defendants and other people of the neighbourhood. It is alleged by the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit land for more than twenty years uninterruptedly and that on 15.01.2010 the defendants made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and hence he instituted the suit seeking declaration of his right, title and interest by way of adverse possession in the suit land.

5. The defendant-respondents(hereinafter mentioned as defendants) by filing a common written statement pleaded that Firuz Ali, the predecessor of defendant Nos.1 to 5 purchased the suit land along with other land by a registered deed dated 06.03.1969 from one Sona Miah and thereafter he sold 0.40 satak of land to Rehana Begum by a registered deed dated 03.03.1980. After the death of Firuz Ali, his legal heirs also sold 0.20 satak of land to Md. Abruch Ali, the defendant No.6. There was mutation of the land in the name of the parties pursuant to the sale transactions.

It is also contended by the defendants that the plaintiff has a plot of land by the side of the suit land and in the year 2000 the plaintiff requested the defendants to use the suit land by making his house temporarily until he constructed his house in his own land. The defendants allowed the plaintiff to temporarily stay in the suit land and it was in the year 2000 but thereafter the plaintiff did not construct his house in his own land and hence the defendants asked the plaintiff to vacate the suit land and the village Pradhan also requested the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not vacate the suit land and possessing the suit land. It is emphatically denied by the defendants that the plaintiff has been possessing the suit land by constructing his hut since 08.02.1990, denying the right title of the defendants.

6. The trial Court considering the pleadings framed following four issues:

“1. Has the plaintiff his cause of action for instituting the present suit?

2. Is the suit maintainable in its present form?

3. Is the plaintiff entitled to get declaration to the fact that he has right, title and interest in the suit land on the basis of adverse possession?

4. Is the plaintiff entitled to get any other relief/relieves in the suit?”

7. In course of trial the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examine