Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 8262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
Arindam Lodh, J
Nitai Shil v. State of Tripura
Title Appeal No.04/2019|Title Suit No.02/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. D. R. Choudhury
For the Respondents: Mr. K. De
Adverse possession must be established with clear evidence of hostile and continuous possession; mere long-term possession is insufficient to confer ownership rights.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 27 and 65 - Adverse possession - Claim for adverse possession over government land - The plaintiffs failed to establish uninterrupted and hostile possession since 1965 as required for adverse possession, leading both lower courts to dismiss their claim based on lack of substantial proof. (Paras 10, 30)
(B) Evidence - The distinction between lawful possession and adverse possession - Mere possession does not confer ownership rights unless adverse possession is satisfactorily proved; knowledge of possession alone is insufficient to establish adverse claim. (Paras 29)
Facts of the case:
The appellants claimed adverse possession of 0.507 acres of land since 1965 after their father allegedly arrived in India in 1950. They alleged that their possession was open and notorious and that their claims were unfairly dismissed by the lower courts.
Findings of Court:
The lower courts confirmed that the plaintiffs’ possession could not be classified as adverse due to the lack of evidence proving hostility against the real owner.
Issues: The main issues included whether the appellants effectively proved adverse possession and whether the lower courts' decisions were perverse in relation to the plaintiffs' claims.
Ratio Decidendi: Adverse possession requires clear evidence of hostility and public assertion against the true owner's rights; the mere act of possession is insufficient. Possession must be proven as openly and continuously hostile for the statutory period to confer rights.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs in favor of the respondents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal concerns proof of adverse possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding the evidence of possession. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. court's assessment of possession records. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. clarification on the requirements for adverse possession. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 5. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 31) |
1. This appeal arises out of a judgment dated 26.04.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gomati, Udaipur in Title Appeal No.04/2019 whereby the appeal was dismissed affirming the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division in Title Suit No.02/2016 by which learned Trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff appellants for declaring their right, title and interest over the suit land by way of adverse possession.
2. The suit land comprises 0.507 acre of CS Plot No.1151, corresponding to RS Plot No.2332 of class 'Tilla' as reflected in RS Khatian of Mouja Amarpur. During first settlement operation, the classification of land was shown as 'Bastu'.
3. The claim of the appellants was that their father Lt. Nibaran Shil came in the locality of that area in the year 1950 from East Pakistan and started residing in contiguous CS Plot Nos. 1151/1180 and 1401/1881 by constructing homestead dwelling and subsequently, got allotment of said land in the year 1964.
4. While residing in those plots said Nibaran Shil also started possessing the suit land by constructing huts therein and by planting vegetables and other seasonal crops. However, from 01.01.1965 said Nibaran Shil, started forcefully possessing the suit land openly in public and adversely claiming his right, title and interest therein. The suit land as was during the first survey and settlement operation was recorded in the name of the government in the Khas Khatian, showing him as an illegal possessor in the relevant column of the related Khatian.
5. According to the appellants, said adverse possession became perfected after a lapse of 30 years i.e. on 31.12.1994, since when their predecessor became the owner thereof. The said Nibaran Shil died in 2004 and his wife also expired in 2011 and thereafter, the appellants became absolute owners in possession of the suit land. But during Revisional survey and in settlement operation, the name of predecessor of the appellants was deleted from the relevant column of the Khatian. It was also stated by appellants that in the year 2015 the defendants sanctioned a minimum of Rs.25,000/- in the name of the appellant No.1 for construction of his house in the suit land.
6. It was also additionally stated that in the year 2012, the appellants filed Title Suit No.23/2012 for declaration of their right, title and interest with further prayer for an injunction against some of the present respondents in the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gomati, of the then South Tripura District, in respect of their allotted land which was also decreed on 22.05.2013. But suddenly, on 23.12.2015, the respondent No.3 with his staff came to the suit land and cautioned the appellants to vacate the suit land within seven days followed by serving a notice dated 26.12.2015, asking the appellants to appear before him with relevant papers in support of his occupation of the suit land. Again, a similar second notice was served on 02.01.2016 and the appellants submitted all necessary documents to respondent No.2 but despite the same, on 14.01.2016, the respondent No.3 with his men tried to dispossess the appellants from the suit land illegally and, therefore, the present suit was filed.
7. According to the respondents, considering the possession of the father of the appellants, 0.451 acre of land was allotted to them from CS Plot No.1151 but his name was not deleted from the Khatian. However, the same was later on deleted during Revisional survey and settlement operation.
8. According to them, the father of the appellants never possessed the present suit land. They further
