To establish adverse possession, one must demonstrate actual, continuous, and hostile possession, which must be proven by cogent evidence; mere assertions are insufficient.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. SM Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant No. 1 here-in-after referred to as the defendant as well as Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court no. 1, Unakoti District, Kailasahar in case No. Title Suit 31 of 2018 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent no. 3 against the defendant no. 1-appellant.

3. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was instituted by the respondents of the present appeal being the plaintiffs impleading the present appellant as defendant no. 1 for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff no. 3 over the suit land described in the plaint schedule and for recovery of khas possession thereof and for compensation and mesne profit.

4. The facts of the case, as projected by the learned trial court, may be reproduced here-in-below:-

"2. The brief fact of the plaintiffs' suit, inter alia, is that the suit land described in first schedule of the plaint originally owned and possessed by plaintiff No. 1 & 2 and plaintiff No. 1 & 2 filed TS 08 of 2011 against the plaintiff No. 3 and defendant No. 2 of this suit for declaration title and recovery of possession of the suit land and by judgment and decree dated 02.12.2011 and 07.12.2011 passed by Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Kailashahar it was declared that the plaintiff No. 1 & 2 has right, title and interest over the suit land and decree of recovery of possession was granted from the plaintiff No. 3. Thereafter, plaintiff No. 1, 2 & 3 filed TS 08 of 2012 against the defendant No. 2 to 5 for declaration that the plaintiffs have every right to maintain their possession and for perpetual injunction against the defendant No. 2 to 5 and by judgment and decree dated 06.01.2017 and 13.01.2017 the said suit was decreed declaring that plaintiffs have right to maintain their possession over the suit land and defendant No. 2 to 5 and their men and agents were perpetually injuncted and restrained from entering into the suit land and or in any way disturbing the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. It is also the plead of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No. 3, purchased the suit land from the plaintiff No. 1 & 2 by registered sale deed No. 1-00100 dated 07.02.2013 and became absolute owner of the suit land. It is also pleaded that the present defendant No. 1 being close associates of defendant No. 2 to 5 was aware of earlier proceeding recently with the assistance and at the instance of defendant No. 2 to 5 and group of persons and agents unlawfully entered into the suit land w.e.f. 15.06.2018 and gradually broke down four numbers of construction of plaintiff No. 3 and took away valuable belongings and goods of plaintiff No. 3 as specifically described in schedule 3 of the plaint and caused loss of Rs. 11,30,500/- and also made construction over the suit land as described in the second schedule of the plaint. The plaintiff also pleaded about the filing of violation cases and their consequence against the defendant No. 2 to 5 but details of the same is not necessary for this suit. The plaintiff also pleaded that a notice dated 05.07.2018 was issued by plaintiff upon the defendant No. 1 informing about the earlier proceedings for leaving the suit land and for removing construction by defendant No. 1 and also for payment of compensation of Rs. 11,30,500/- but defendant No. 1 failed to comply and rather sent o