The main legal point established in the judgment is the stringent requirements for proving adverse possession, including the need for hostile possession, continuity, publicity, and exclusiveness, as outlined in various legal principles and case laws referenced by the court.

1. This second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 06.07.2011 and 11.07.2011 respectively, passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Kamalpur, North Tripura in Title Appeal No.3 of 2010, whereunder the judgment and decree of dismissal dated 08.10.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kamalpur, North Tripura in Title Suit No.7 of 2009 has been affirmed.

2. The second appeal against concurrent finding of the trial Court and the first appellate Court has been admitted for hearing by order dated 06.09.2011 passed by this Court on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether in absence of any written statement, disputing the appellant’s claim of adverse possession for more than a statutory period and in view of the entries in Exbt. Nos.2 and 3(record of right), the learned Court below committed error by holding that the appellant do not hold the title in respect of the suit by way of adverse possession.”

3. The appellants as plaintiffs(hereinafter mentioned as plaintiffs) instituted Title Suit No.7 of 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kamalpur against respondent Nos.1 to 5 and proforma-respondent No.6, Sukumar Saha, since deceased, who is substituted by the respondent No.6 to 6(1d)(hereinafter mentioned as defendants) seeking declaration that the plaintiffs and defendant No.6 become the joint owners and possessors of the suit land, and in the alternative a declaration of their right, title and interest in the suit land by way of adverse possession against the rightful owners, i.e. defendant Nos.1 to 5 and also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 5 from interfering with their possession in any manner.

4. It is inter alia contended by the plaintiffs that Chaitanya Ch. Saha, father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.6 had been possessing the suit land exercising all acts of right, title and interest over the suit land, denying the title of the State defendants and that in Khatian No.1/113 of Mouja Kanchanpur which refers to Old Khatian No.111, the possession of Chaitanya Ch. Saha was recorded and that Khatian No.111 was finally published on 09.03.1965 and Khatian No.1/113 was published finally on 31.07.1986. That Chaitanya Ch. Saha was in possession till his death i.e. 26.06.2001. The plaintiffs being the daughters of Chaitanya Ch. Saha and the defendant No.6 being the son of said Chaitanya Ch. Saha were entitled to continue in possession and that they were possessing the suit land for more than statutory period of limitation, denying the title of the rightful owner and therefore entitled to get the declaration as sought for.

5. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 did not appear and contest the suit and so the hearing was directed ex parte against them.

6. Defendant No.6 contested the suit by filing written statement contending that the plaintiffs were his full blood sisters and that they were given in marriage at Agartala and West Bengal in the year 1984 and 1988 respectively and there were no occasions for them to possess the suit land, denying the title of the rightful owner. From 1963 he has/had been possessing the suit land, denying the title of the State defendants and living on the suit land in his house and also doing business in the shop-hut. The plaintiffs never possessed the suit land exercising the act of hostile possession and so they are not entitled to get any decree as prayed by them.

7. The trial Court framed three issues, namely-

“(i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form and nature?

(ii) Are the plaintiffs in possession of the suit land adversely for a period more than 30 years till the filing of this suit against the defendant nos.1 to 5? If so, have the plaintiffs acquired right, title and interest over the suit land by adverse possession?

(iii) To what relief/reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled?”

8. In the course of trial, the plaintiffs examined themselves as PWs 1 and 2 and also examined two more witnesses, namely PW3 Babul