The claim of adverse possession requires clear, continuous, and hostile possession, and cannot be established solely based on possession without adequate evidence.

JUDGMENT

State of Kerala has come in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.3.2011 of the District Court, Kasaragod in AS No.13/2006, which reversed the dismissal of OS No.20/2002 on 30.11.2005 by the Sub Court, Kasaragod.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The suit is one for a declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and consequential injunction. Plaint A schedule property belonged to the plaintiffs and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is contended that the plaintiffs and their predecessors have been in possession of the properties since the last 75 years, effecting vast improvements and cultivation. The 1^st plaintiff had raised certain plantations in A schedule properties with the permission of late C.H.Kunhi Kalandar. It is further contended that the properties thus vest with the plaintiffs since it had been openly possessed by them in opposition to the title of the State and thus they have perfected title by adverse possession. It is further contended that proceedings were initiated for recovery of excess land under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and in those proceedings a counter affidavit was lodged by the State, contending that the plaintiffs had encroached upon the Government land and thus they are in possession of the same. Therefore, it is stated that the possession of the plaintiffs being admitted by the State, the plaintiffs had perfected the title by adverse possession. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement denying the assertions of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the plaint A schedule properties for more than 75 years. It is stated that out of item No.1 of plaint A schedule properties, an extent of 0.99 Acre was already assigned and the remaining extent is yet Govt. A. W. land, and that item No.2 is also Govt. A.W. Land, and also that all the lands remaining to be assigned in the plaint A schedule properties are in the possession of the Government, which are earmarked for assignment. As per the revenue records, the assigned land in R.S. No.166/2B of Muliyar Village is Government A.W. dry land and set apart for assignment for SC/ST persons. In respect of the lands covered in RS No.166/3B, assignment orders were issued to defendants 3 to 6, and they are in possession of the said lands. The plaintiffs had no objection in assigning the aforesaid properties to the defendants 3 to 6 and therefore, the suit cannot be maintained by them. Defendants 3 to 6 have not made any trespass as alleged as the property belongs to the State Government. The description of A schedule property shown in the plaint is incorrect. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A5 were marked and PW1 was examined. On behalf of defendants, Exts.B1 to B6(b) were marked and no oral evidence was adduced by them. Exts.X1 to X3 are the files pertaining to the assignment of the land in favour of defendants 3 to 6. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that no independent evidence has been adduced by the plaintiffs to prove that they were in continuous possession of the properties in order to constitute a title by adverse possession. It was further found that the ingredients for perfection of title by adverse possession were not proved by the plaintiffs and accordingly, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred AS No.13/2006 before the District Court, Kasaragod and in the appellate stage, an Advocate Commission was taken out for local inspection. On 25.9.2010, a report was filed by the advocate commissioner and the first a