The court affirmed that adverse possession requires substantial proof that is open, continuous, and adverse to the true owner for over 12 years, emphasizing legal title must be established by clear evidence.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellants. Also heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the reversal finding returned by the judgment dated 09.02.2018, delivered in Title Appeal No. 19 of 2012 by the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. The judgment and decree dated 25.06.2012 & 02.07.2012 delivered in the Title Suit No. 04 of 2006 by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, has been reversed and the suit has been decreed. On questioning the legality of the said judgment dated 09.02.2018, delivered in Title Appeal No. 19 of 2012, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants. At the time of admitting the appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court:

'(i) Whether the finding of the First Appellate Court is perverse for misappropriation of evidence in regard to the title of the plaintiff?

(ii) Any other substantial question of law shall be decided at the time of hearing.

3. The brief history of the case filed by the plaintiff, the appellants herein are in short, is that the plaintiffs are the lawful owners of land measuring 0.20 acres as mentioned in schedule 'A' of the plaint. The plaintiffs have purchased the aforesaid quantum of land by dint of a registered deed bearing registration No. 1-2429, dated 20.05.1985 from one Bipin Chandra Das of Ramnagar in lieu of consideration money and according to plaintiffs, since the date of purchase he inducted into possession of the said quantum of land. Later on, the said quantum of land was recorded in the name of the plaintiffs in khatian No. 704 under Mouja and T.K. Ramnagar vide M.R. Case No. 63/03 and plot No. 399/2222 was surveyed in the name of the plaintiffs in the aforesaid khatian. The respondent Nos. 1 to 8 without having any right, title and interest, on 19.06.2005 in the morning illegally entered into the suit land as mentioned in schedule 'B' of the plaint and forcefully raised one construction as mentioned in schedule 'C' of the plaint inspite of objection of plaintiffs. Thereafter, dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land as mentioned in schedule 'D' of the plaint by demolishing bamboo fencing and damaged valuable trees. The matter was reported to O/C Panisagar P.D. but, no action was taken. Thereafter, the plaintiffs applied for demarcation of the suit land as mentioned in schedule 'A' and accordingly, as per order of Ld. S. D. M., Dharmanagar, the Tehsildar of Ramnagar Tehsil demarcated the land of the plaintiffs in presence of the parties wherein, it was found that the respondents have forcefully occupied land measuring 3 decimals (described in schedule 'B') and the respondent No. 9 has forcefully occupied land measuring 4 decimals (described in schedule 'B' of the plaint). Having no other alternative, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for granting a decree of declaration of right, title, interest and for recovery of khas possession in respect of the suit land as mentioned in schedule 'B' and 'D' of the plaint by way of demolishing of construction illegally raised by the respondents as mentioned in schedule 'C' of the plaint. After hearing the parties, vide judgment