Adverse possession requires clear proof of hostile, open, and continuous possession; claims based on mere occupation without valid documents are insufficient.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment dated 20.02.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Title Appeal No. 43 of 2016, partly allowing the appeal, setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dharmanagar, North Tripura, dated 14.07.2016 in the Title Suit No. 31 of 2010. At the time of admitting the appeal, the following substantial question of law was formulated by this Court:

'Whether the finding that the appellant has failed to prove the date when she was actually disposed and denial of the decree of recovery is grossly perverse inasmuch as the first appellate court itself has returned the finding that the defendants have failed to prove their plea of adverse possession and the defendants were found in possession?'

3. The facts that would essentially be required for appreciating the substantial questions of law may be introduced at the beginning. The plaintiff, the appellants herein filed a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of possession of the suit land described in the plaint of Title Suit No. 31 of 2010 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dharmanagar, North Tripura. In the said suit, the present defendant-respondents herein, were made principal defendants and 81 others were made pro-defendants but, in the trial Court, only the defendant No. 1 appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement and the pro-defendants did not appear to contest the suit. As such, it proceeded ex-parte against them.

4. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 14.07.2016, against which a Title Appeal was filed in the Court of the learned District Judge North Tripura, Dharmanagar, which was registered as T.A. No. 43 of 2016 and in that appeal also, only the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 appeared through a lawyer by submitting vakalatnama and the pro-defendants, who were pro-defendants in the trial court, did not appear and thus, expressed their disinclination in contesting the suit as well as the appeal preferred with reference to that suit and apparently admitted the claim of the plaintiff-appellants involved in the suit.

5. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, on 20.02.2018 in Title Appeal No. 43 of 2016 observed as under:

'In the result, the appeal is partly allowed on contest. The judgment and decree dated 14.07.2016 and 21.07.2016 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Title Suit No. 31 of 2010 whereby and whereunder, the learned trial court has dismissed the suit on contest is hereby set aside.

The right, title and interest of the plaintiff-appellant over the suit land is hereby declared.

The appeal is partly allowed on contest with cost. Prepare decree accordingly within time. Send back the L.C. Record along with a copy of this judgment.'

6. The suit land as described in the first schedule of the plaint is a land measuring 0.06 acre pertaining to Old Plot No. 579(P), Corresponding to RS Plot No. 761(P) of Khatian No. 159/1. Along with the suit land some other properties were originally owned and possessed by her father along with other co-sharers, which