RSA 133/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10th February, 200 5 passed by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi in Title Appeal No.10/2002 di smissing the appeal preferred by the present appellant by upholding the judgment and decree dated 28th June, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divisio n), Hailakandi in Title Suit No.9/1998, whereby and whereunder the suit of the p laintiff/respondent was decreed and the counter claim filed by the defendant/app ellant has been dismissed. The respondent as plaintiff instituted the said suit for declaration of right, t itle and interest over the suit land and also for recovery of khas possession, a part from praying for a decree for permanent injunction, contending that though the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land, the defendant/ appellant trespassed in part of the said land in the month of July, 1996 and thereafter, encroached the remaining portion of the land in the month of May, 1997, which necessitated filing of the suit for right, title and interest and for recovery of khas posses sion. The defendant/appellant filed the written statement admitting the ownership of t he plaintiff, but filing the counter claim contending that since they are in pos session of the suit land for a period of more than 24 (twenty-four) years, thei r right over the property has ripen by adverse possession. The defendant, there fore, prayed for a decree declaring the possessory right over the land covered b y Schedule-A to the counter claim, which includes the suit land. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues for consideration and decision:- 1) Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 3) Whether the plaintiff has right, title interest over the suit land? 4) Whether the defendant acquired Jote and possessory right over the suit l and? 5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree? 6) Whether the defendant is entitled to get decree as claimed in his counte r claim? 7) To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled? Both the parties examined 1(one) witness each. While the plaintiff also proved 3 (three) documents, the defendant did not prove any document in support of his co ntention. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidences on record, both oral and documentary, vide judgment dated 28th June, 2002 decreed the suit of the pl aintiff declaring its right, title and interest and also for recovery of khas-po ssession and dismissing the counter claim by holding that though the defendant i n the counter claim contended that their right has ripen because of the adverse possession, they could not produce any cogent evidence to constitute the adverse possession. Being aggrieved, Title Appeal No.10/2002 was filed by the present appellant, whi ch has also been dismissed by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 10th Febru ary, 2005. Hence the present appeal. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the de fendant/ appellant is continuously possessing the land for more than 24(twenty-f our) years, his title has ripened by adverse possession. The learned counsel, t herefore, submits that in view of such facts, the learned Court below ought not to have dismissed the counter claim of the defendant. It appears from the judgment passed by the learned Courts below as well as the p leadings in the written statement that the defendant has admitted the right, tit le and interest of the plaintiff/ respondent in respect of the suit land, over w hich, however, according to the defendant, his title was ripened by adverse poss ession. The right, title and interest of the plaintiff/appellant in respect of the suit land, therefore, is not in dispute. The question, which requires deter mination, is whether the plaintiff has acquired the title over the property by r ight of adverse possession. Both the learned Courts below have found that the i ngredients to constitute the adverse possession could not be proved by the appel lant. Mere possession, however, long may be would not constitute adverse possession, u nless of course, it is proved by placing on record reliable evidence that the pe rson occupying the land has acquired the right by adverse possession by open and continuous possession denouncing the title of the rightful owner, for a period of 12 (twelve) years or more. No such evidence could be laid by the appellant/d efendant. Finding of fact has also been recorded by both the Courts below that the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff in 1996 and 1997. Nothing also could be placed to demonstrate that the finding recorded by the learned Courts below in that regard is perverse. That being the position, I do not find involvement of any substantial question o f law, so as to admit the appeal and hence the same is dismissed. No costs.