TITLE SUIT No. 19 of 2000 · Gauhati High Court

The trial court upon appreciation on the evidence adduced by the parties dismiss ed the suit of the plaintiffs by holding that the rights of the defendants have ripened by adverse possession and consequentially, the title of the truthful own er, namely, the plaintiff has been extinguished. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No.9/2008 before the first Appellate Court, which has also b een dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned courts bel ow were not justified in holding that the right of the true owner have extinguis hed and the right of the defendants over the suit land has ripened by adverse po ssession, merely, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the PW 1 (the plaintif f No. 1), who has never said that the defendants are occupying the land adversel y to the interest of the rightful owner. It appears from the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court that PW 1 durin g his cross-examination has supported the case of the defendants. PW 1 in his ev idence has admitted that the defendant No. 1 has been possessing the Schedule-B land since the year 1937-38 by constructing the residential houses. It has also been admitted that the defendant No. 2 is also possessing the land by constructi ng the house since the year 1941-42. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that t he defendants are either the permissive occupier or the tenants. The evidence ad duced, reveals that despite such long possession from 1937-38 and 1941-42 by the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 respectively by constructing houses thereon, the suit was instituted only in the year 2003, after, according to the plaintiff, they came t o know about the mutation. The evidence of PW 1, therefore, supports the case of the defendants’ continuous and uninterrupted possession, which is adverse to th e interest of lawful owner, for more than 12 years by constructing residential h ouses since the year 1937-38 and 1941-42 by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 respective ly. The learned courts below, therefore, have rightly dismissed the suit of the plai ntiffs. There being no substantial question of law involved, the appeal stands d ismissed. No costs.