Continuous possession does not confer title without a clear assertion of adverse ownership in the face of the true owner's claim.

1. Heard Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. A.K. Deb learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal under S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 24.11.2017 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, (Sri S.K. Majumder), Unakoti Judicial District, Kamalpur in Title Appeal No.03 of 2016 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment dated 08.06.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kamalpur, Unakoti Judicial District in Title Suit No.02 of 2015.

3. The present second appeal has been preferred against the concurrent finding arrived at by both the Courts below.

4. The case of the plaintiff - respondents is that the suit land was allotted to them by the State of Tripura through Collector vide allotment order No.37 dated 22.12.1983. Since then, the plaintiff - respondents had been possessing the suit land till they were dispossessed by the defendants in the month of November, 2010. In the year 2013, the plaintiffs were also given permission to sell some portion of the land. The plaintiffs have categorically stated that on the basis of this allotment order (Exbt - 5), they had acquired right, title and interest over the suit property. On the other hand, the appellants, who were originally the defendants of the suit, have claimed right, title and interest by way of adverse possession for above 40 years.

5. The respondent - plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the immovable property and for recovery of possession of a land measuring 0.20 acres described in the schedule of the plaint.
The reliefs sought for in the said suit (T.S. No.2 of 2015) are: -

"(i) Granting declaration of exclusive right, title and interest of this plaintiffs over the suit property directing that the plaintiffs do recover the khas possessions of the suit land and property by evicting the defendants there from.

(ii) Granting money decree for legitimate mesne - profit, compensation of this suit property, both for the periods past and future from the defendants.

(iii) Granting all other relief / reliefs as the Ld. Court deemed fit & proper."

6. The defendants mainly resisted the suit on the following grounds: -

"(i) Their predecessor purchased possessory right of some government khas land including the suit land form one Manik Debbarma for a consideration of Rs.130/-(Rupees one hundred thirty only) and since then they have been possessing the land;

(ii) They have been possessing the land for the last 40 years;

(iii) The plaintiffs predecessor had illegally obtained the allotment order;

(iv) Though the plaintiffs has title over the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint but since they have been possessing the land for almost 40 years, they have acquired title over the land by way of adverse possession and

(v) The right of the real owner that is the plaintiffs has been extinguished due to possession of the land by the defendants for the such long years."

7. The Trial Court framed the following issues: -

"(1) Is the suit is maintainable in its present form?

(2) Is there any cause of action for filing the present suit?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land?

(4) Whether the defendants have illegally dispossessed the plaintiffs?

(5) Whether the plaintiffs side is entitled to get the decree as prayed for?

(6) Whether the plaintiffs side is entitled to get any other relief(s)?"

8. I have perused the issues framed by the learned Trial Court, which was dealt with by both the Cou