ORDER Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Original plaintiff, Neman Bhuiyan filed Title Suit No. 11 of 1978 against defendants for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in alternative for recovery of possession over the suit land. 2. Plaintiffs case was that suit land was raiyati land of Hasmat Khan, father of defendant No. 1. It was Tand land and so Hasmat Khan never cultivated it. Plaintiffs father reclaimed by way of Korkar and made it productive and after his death, the plaintiff is in cultivating possession thereof, openly and adversely to the knowledge of defendant. Thus, he acquired indefeasible kayami raiyati right over it. 3. As on 12.9.1973. Anchal Adhikari, Pratappur opened a demand in respect of suit land, except 25 decimals, in the name of defendant No. 1, a cloud was cast upon plaintiffs title. Hence the suit. 4. According to defendants, Hasmat Khan regularly cultivated the suit land till his death and thereafter, the defendants are cultivating it and growing different crops. 5. Plaintiff had no concern whatsoever with the suit land and he never possessed it. Parcha, if any, claimed to have been obtained by plaintiff in respect of suit land, under the provisions of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act was also forged and fabricated. 6. Moot question to be decided in the suit was whether plaintiff acquired kayami raiyati right over the suit land by adverse possession on the basis of his claim of Korkar. Both the parties were aware of this issue involved in the suit and, accordingly, adduced evidence to support their possession. 7. It is well settled that in order to maintain a plea of adverse possession, it must be stated in the plaint that plaintiff had ever asserted any hostile title against the real owner and/or that a dispute with regard to possession had ever arisen. Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent, at least to show that when his possession became adverse, in order to count starting point of limitation against the party affected. 8. No doubt, plaintiff claimed reclamation of suit land which was recorded as raiyati land of father of defendant. Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent, at least to show that when his possession became adverse, in order to count starting point of limitation against the party affected. 8. No doubt, plaintiff claimed reclamation of suit land which was recorded as raiyati land of father of defendant. No. 1 and its nature was by way of Korkar by his father, who made it cultivable and after death of his father, he continued in cultivating possession thereof, so his possession was permissive and there is nothing in the present case to establish either in pleading or in evidence that as to when his possession became adverse. Mere statement in plaint that plaintiff acquired title by adverse possession was not enough. Even wrong possession cannot necessarily be adverse possession. 9. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, it was simply stated that father of the plaintiff and after his death, he himself has been coming in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land. Suit land was reclaimed and made productive at a huge cost of labour. But, it was nowhere alleged in the plaint that at any time preceding more than 12 years before filing of the suit, there was any dispute between plaintiff and defendants with respect to the suit land and then the plaintiff claimed the suit land adversely to the defendants. 10. The present suit was filed on 4.10.1978, but there was no averment in the plaint as to on which date plaintiffs permis- sive possession by way of Korkar came to an end and he started claiming the suit land adversely to the defendants. 11. On the basis of entry in survey records of right, there was presumption of defendants possession over the suit land as raiyat, which must also be presumed to have continued, unless the plaintiff could have shown that defendants possession was disturbed. 12. The Courts below discussed evidence of defendants witnesses on the point of possession and found that there was hardly anything substantial to disbelieve oral testimony of those witnesses on the question of defendants possession over the suit land. More so, in face of Khatiyan, which had presumption of correctness attached to it also proved defendants title and possession over the suit land. 13. More so, in face of Khatiyan, which had presumption of correctness attached to it also proved defendants title and possession over the suit land. 13. In my opinion, therefore, both the Courts below rightly came to conclusion that plaintiff not only failed to prove his claim of reclamation of the suit land by way of Korkar he also failed to prove to have acquired title over it by adverse possession. 14. There is no merit in this Second Appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs. 15. Appeal dismissed.