JUDGMENT Maibam Binoy Kumar Singh, J. 1. This is to dispose of RFA No. 10 of 2008 and RFA No. 15 of 2007, which have been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.7.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur East in Original Suit No. 6/97/44/2003/9/2004/2/207. The appellants in RFA No. 10 of 2008 are the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the appellants in RFA No. 15 of 2007 are the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the said original suit, in which the principal respondent in both the appeals is the plaintiff. The plaintiff/principal respondent is a registered farming cooperative society said to be consisting of 125 landless farmers and registered in 1995. 2. I have heard Mr. N. Kotiswar, learned Advocate General, Manipur, appearing on behalf of the appellants in RFA No; 10 of 2008, Mr. Th. Modhu Singh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in RFA No. 15 of 2007 and Mr. N. Kerani, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the principal respondent in both the appeals at length. All the materials before the court are also perused. 3. In the said Original Suit, which was filed with the leave of the court without notice under Section80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of urgency, the plaintiff-principal respondent, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, was praying mainly for a decree for declaration of its title over the suit-lands-A and B on the ground of adverse possession of the said lands by it for a period of more than 30 years as against the State of Manipur, a decree for cancellation of the allotment order being No. 21/32/80-R(A) dated 20.2.1991, under which the suit-land-A had been allotted to the Director General of Police, Manipur (the defendant No. 4 in the suit), a decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 from disturbing with peaceful possession of the suit-lands by the plaintiff and also a decree for preventing the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from delivering possession of the allotted land and execution of deed of allotment, etc. 4. 4 and 5 from disturbing with peaceful possession of the suit-lands by the plaintiff and also a decree for preventing the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from delivering possession of the allotted land and execution of deed of allotment, etc. 4. The plaintiff's case in brief is as follows: The suit-lands, lying at Lamphelpat under Village No. 91(A) Lamphelpat, being swampy, marshy-wastelands and unfit for human habitation and cultivation, were previously lying unused from time immemorial The neighboring local landless farmers, some of whom were predecessors-in-interest of the members of the plaintiff with some of its existing members encroached upon the area covered by the suit-lands about 45 years ago for the purpose of cultivation. The State of Manipur and its agent were having knowledge and notice of the reclamation, development, open and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit-lands by the members of the plaintiff. While the Individual members were possessing and enjoying parts of the suit-lands in their individual capacities, they felt the necessity to form a collective farming society in the year 1960 and they proposed to form a Society for common enjoyment of the suit-lands. Applications were filed to the concerned authorities of the State Government for granting allotment of the suit-lands and for registration of the proposed society. Since the year of encroachment and during the course of reclamation and development of the suit-lands, the predecessors-in-interest of some of the members with some old existing members openly asserted their rights and titles over the suit-lands and as a result of adverse possession of the suit-lands for more than 30 years, title over the same has been perfected and the State has lost its title in favour of the plaintiff. Though eviction cases were initiated by the SDC, Imphal West, the members of the plaintiff could not be evicted from the suit-lands. When the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 came into force and during the course of survey operation of the area, the Dag-Chithas were prepared recording the name of the Society as the actual possessor in the relevant column of the Dag-Chithas. The Director of Settlement and Land Records, Manipur, also reported to the District Cooperative Officer, Imphal vide his letter dated 23.11.1995, confirming the factum of exclusive, long and adverse possession of the suit-lands by members of the plaintiff. The Director of Settlement and Land Records, Manipur, also reported to the District Cooperative Officer, Imphal vide his letter dated 23.11.1995, confirming the factum of exclusive, long and adverse possession of the suit-lands by members of the plaintiff. In the month of August, 1996, when some police personnel asked the members of the plaintiff to leave and vacate the suit-lands, it came to know about the allotment of the suit-lands-A in favour of the Director General of Police, Manipur for construction of Central Police Housing Colony and District Police Reserve Lines. The plaintiff challenged the allotment order by filing CR No. 816 of 1996 but the same was dismissed on 18.9.1996 by the High Court on the ground of involvement of disputes regarding title over the suit-land-A. A writ appeal, being WA No. 119 of 1996 filed against the dismissal order, was dismissed on 6.1.1997. According to the plaintiff, no deed of allotment has been executed and no delivery of possession of the suit-land-A to the allottee has been made. Further allegations are that the allottee has not used the suit-land-A for the purpose for which the allotment was made even after four years of its allotment and that only after dismissal of the writ appeal, some portions of the suit-land-A were forcibly occupied thereby causing damages to plants and vegetables. 5. The basis of the prayers of the plaintiff in the said suit is that it has acquired title over the suit-lands by virtue of its adverse possession of the said lands for more than the required statutory period of 30 years as against the State of Manipur. 6. Though there is no statutory definition of the expression "adverse possession", there is no dispute that it means a hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner. It is well settled that a person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that the possession was hostile to the real owner and that it amounted to denial of his title to the property. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person, constitute adverse possession, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person, constitute adverse possession, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. The said hostile possession must be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario i.e., it must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the true owner. Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in a case claiming relief on the basis of adverse possession. In this connection, one may refer to various decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Some of the authorities are P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy AIR 1957 SC 314 ; Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and Anr. v. Balwant @ Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil (1995) 2 SCC 543 ; Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India 2004 (10) SCC 779 , Des Raj v. Bhagat Ram (2007) 9 SCC 641 and P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Ors. v. Revamma and Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 59 . 7. In Karnataka Board of Wakf (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held at SCC p.785, para 11 as follows: 11. In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina, Parsinni v. Sukhi and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka.) Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. [Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr.) v. Raj Kumari Sharma.] 8. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (appellants in RFA No. 10 of 2008) did not file their written statement. However, defendant Nos. 4 and 5 (appellants in RFA No. 17 of 2007) filed their written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiff. According to the defendant Nos. 4 and 5, all the necessary formalities including the payment of premium, execution of the deed of allotment and delivery of possession in pursuance of the said allotment have been performed. Further According to the defendant Nos. 4 and 5, the police department constructed fencing around the allotted land and three barracks inside the land. It is also alleged that Dag-Chithas produced by the plaintiff were fraudulently fabricated and no attachment has boon done in respect of them and as such, no reliance is to be placed on them. 9. Following are the issues framed by the trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties: 1. It is also alleged that Dag-Chithas produced by the plaintiff were fraudulently fabricated and no attachment has boon done in respect of them and as such, no reliance is to be placed on them. 9. Following are the issues framed by the trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties: 1. Whether the members of the plaintiff society and its predecessors-in-interest have been exclusively, continuously, openly and adversely possessing the suit lands "A" and "B" for the last more than 30 years ? 2. Whether the allotment of 1.26.21 acres of land (Suit land "A" in favour of defendant No. 4 was made illegally or not; 3. Whether the defendant No. 5 and may other police personnel disturbed the possession of the suit lands by the members of the plaintiff? 4. Whether the suit is barred by Section 34 of the Specific Reliefs Act, 1965? 5. Whether there is cause of action? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed ? 10. The plaintiff produced 5 (five) PWs. 165 documents being exhibits A-1 to A-165 were also exhibited on the side of the plaintiff. 7 (seven) DWs were examined and 11 documents being B-1 to B-11 were produced on behalf of the defendant Nos. 4 and 5. The learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur East, decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit in its favour and thereby declaring, inter-alia, the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit-lands by virtue of its adverse possession as against the State and restraining the defendants from entering into the suit-lands except the portion already occupied by the defendant Nos. 4 and 5. In respect of the above said portion said to be in occupation of the defendant Nos. 4 and 5, the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur East, ordered the defendants to pay compensation equivalent to the prevailing market price to the plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of the decree/Further, according to the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Truck Court), Manipur East, on payment of the said compensation, the name of the defendant No. 4 must be recorded as the pattadar/owner of the said portion but in default of the said payment of the compensation, the defendant Nos. District Judge (Fast Truck Court), Manipur East, on payment of the said compensation, the name of the defendant No. 4 must be recorded as the pattadar/owner of the said portion but in default of the said payment of the compensation, the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 would not be entitled to ownership of the said portion of the suit-lands. 11. These two appeals have been filed challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.7.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court). Manipur East, in the said original suit mainly on the ground that despite failure on the part of the plaintiff to prove its case regarding its alleged adverse possession of the suit-lands against the State of Manipur by cogent and reliable evidence, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. According to the appellants, having regards to the nature of the case, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of its own case and not on the failure of some of the defendants to file their written statements as well as on any other considerations. Relying on various decisions such as Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and Anr. v. Balwant @ Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil (1996) 2 SCC 543; Des Raj v. Bhagat Ram (2007) 9 SCC 641 ; and Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India 2004 (10) SCC 779 , both the Counsel of the appellants submit that as per well settled principle of law, a person who based his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidences that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his right to the property claim. According to the Learned Counsel of the appellants, the plaintiff has failed to prove the above said requirement as well as other requirements such as adequacy in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that the said possession is adverse to the true owner. Drawing the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf (supra) the two Counsel of the appellants submit that the plaintiff pleading adverse possession has no equities in its favour and that since the plaintiff is trying to defeat the right of the true owner, it is for it to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish its adverse possession. It is also submitted that the law does not intend to confer any premium on the wrong doing of a person in wrongful possession. Moreover, both the Learned Counsel of the appellants relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh, (dead) through his Lrs. (2000) 5 SCC 652 , submit that so far as the question of perfection of title by adverse possession in respect of public property is concerned, the question requires to be considered more seriously and effectively for reasons that it ultimately involves destruction of right/title of the State to an immovable property and conferring upon a third party encroacher title where he had none. In effect, the submission of both the Learned Counsel of the appellants is that there is no sufficient and reliable materials before the trial court for establishing the case of the plaintiff as against the defendants (the present appellants). 12. With reference to RFA No. 10 of 2008, Learned Counsel of the plaintiff-principal respondent submits that the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 failed to file their written statements despite giving ample opportunity and having regards to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, every allegation of facts in the plaint must be taken as having been admitted by the said defendants/appellants and that in view of the failure to file written statements by the said defendants/appellants, the trial court could have pronounced judgment on the basis of the contents in the plaint. According to the Learned Counsel of the plaintiff-principal respondent, the defendants-appellants who failed to file their written statements, should not be allowed to make any submission on the basis of the new pleas and grounds stated in their memo of appeal in order to prevent them from causing serious prejudice to the plaintiff-principal respondents. Further, According to the Learned Counsel of the plaintiff-principal respondent, the impugned decree passed by the trial court after considering the relevant materials should not be lightly interfered with at the instance of the defendants-appellants, who failed to file their written statements before the trial court. 13. In respect of RFA No. 15 of 2008 also, Learned Counsel of the plaintiff-principal respondent submits to the effect that the impugned decree was passed on basis of the materials before the court legally and properly. 13. In respect of RFA No. 15 of 2008 also, Learned Counsel of the plaintiff-principal respondent submits to the effect that the impugned decree was passed on basis of the materials before the court legally and properly. Further, Learned Counsel of the plaintiff-principal respondent submits to the effect that the documents produced on behalf of the plaintiff-principal respondent are all legally valid documents and that the documents produced on behalf of the defendants-respondents are fabricated documents. 14. In connection with perfection of title by adverse possession in respect of public property, in State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (dead) through his Lrs. (2000) 5 SCC 652 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para 12 as follows: 12. So far as the question of perfection of title by adverse possession and that too in respect of public property is concerned, the question requires to be considered more seriously and effectively for the reasons that it ultimately involves destruction of right/title of the State to immovable property and conferring upon a third-party encroacher title where he had none. The decision in P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakhsmi Reddy adverted to the ordinary classical requirement - that it should be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario - that is the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor. It was also observed therein that whatever may be the animus or intention of a person wanting to acquire title by adverse possession, his adverse possession cannot commence until he obtains actual possession with the required animus. In the decision Secy. of State for India in Council v. Debendra Lal Khan strongly relied on for the respondents, the court laid down further that it is sufficient that the possession be overt and without any attempt at concealment so that the person against whom time is running, ought if he exercises due vigilance, to be aware of what is happening and if the rights of the crown have been openly usurped it cannot be heard to plead that the fact was not brought to its notice. In Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant it was observed that a claim of adverse possession being a hostile assertion involving expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner, the burden is always on the person who asserts such a claim to prove by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and in deciding such claim, the courts must have regard to the animus of the person doing those acts. 15. Keeping in view the above mentioned well settled principles of law regarding the burden of proof on a person claiming adverse possession, the necessary legal ingredients of adverse possession and the standard and nature of proof to substantiate the claim of adverse possession in respect of property belonging to the State, I consider that it will be necessary, proper and just to scrutinize the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment and decree in order to ascertain if they are based upon legally acceptable evidences or not and if the necessary ingredients of adverse possession have been duly proved or nut. The failure on the part of the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 appellants to file any written statement will not bar this Court from making the above said scrutiny in respect of the impugned judgment and decree. There is also no any provision of law prohibiting the defendants, who fail to file their written statement, from filing appeal challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree passed as against them. It is also ascertained that even though no written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3-appellants, the suit was not proceeded ex parte. During the trial, the concerned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the said defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 appellants cross-examined the witnesses of the plaintiffs. The impugned judgment was not passed on the ground of failure of the defendants to file their written statements. There is no dispute that the question of adverse possession involved in the case is a mixed question of fact and law. Considering the nature of the case and having regards to all the relevant facts, the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur East, apparently did not consider proper and just to pass judgment merely on the ground of failure of the said defendants to file their written statements. Considering the nature of the case and having regards to all the relevant facts, the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur East, apparently did not consider proper and just to pass judgment merely on the ground of failure of the said defendants to file their written statements. In fact, V. Thangzasiam, Joint Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, was allowed to be examined as DW No. 1 on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Md. Rashimmuddin, A.S. and S.O.I/E-I, was also allowed to be examined as DW No. 2 on behalf of the defendant No. 3. Further, it is to be noted that even if defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 failed to file their written statements, other defendants, being No. 4 and 5, who are the officers of the State police department, contested the suit by filing their written statements. The failure on the part of the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to file written statements did not absolve the plaintiff of its burden of proving its case of adverse possession which involved mixed question of law and facts. No leniency was entitled by the plaintiff in this regard in as much as it was claiming adverse possession in respect of public property. At the same time, it is ascertained that pleas of defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3-appellants, in their memo of appeal are in effect pleas challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment and decree substantially on the grounds of insufficiency as well as non-acceptability in law of the evidences produced on the side of the plaintiff-principal respondent in support of its case of adverse possession. In short, the case of the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3-appellants, in their appeal is that despite failure of the plaintiff-principal respondent to prove its case of adverse possession by cogent and legally acceptable evidences, the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur East decreed the suit in its favour illegally. 16. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no any valid reason as to why the appeal of the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 should not be entertained and also as to why the concerned appellants should not be heard. 16. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no any valid reason as to why the appeal of the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 should not be entertained and also as to why the concerned appellants should not be heard. This Court has jurisdiction to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment and decree by considering the materials before the trial court and also having regards to the stands taken by the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in their written statements. In the nature of the case, it may not be necessary to consider the defendants-appellants' case at all in the case of finding that there is no sufficient and legally acceptable evidences in support of the plaintiff-principal respondent's case. 17. Since the plaintiff's case is based on adverse possession, it is obligatory on its part to show that its said possession of the suit-lands has been in denial of the title of the true owner, i.e., State. It's believe that the suit-lands belong to itself is necessary as that will be a claim of right adverse to the title of the true owner. On the other hand, if the plaintiff, who is claiming to have been in possession, is found to have admitted or recognized the title of the true owner-State, its possession of the property will not be adverse to the true owner. It is to be noted that animus possidendi is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless a person possessing the land has a requisite animus, the period of prescription does not commence. 18. In the last portion of para 3 of the plaint, there are allegations that having felt the necessity to form a collective farming society as early as the year 1960, the individual members proposed to form a collective farming society for the common enjoyment of the suit-lands and that accordingly, applications were filed to the concerned authorities of the State for granting allotment of the suit-lands and also for registration of the proposed society. This admitted fact of filing applications to the concerned authorities of the State for allotment clearly show that at the relevant time of filing those applications, the applicants admitted and recognized the title of the State in respect of the suit-lands. This admitted fact of filing applications to the concerned authorities of the State for allotment clearly show that at the relevant time of filing those applications, the applicants admitted and recognized the title of the State in respect of the suit-lands. As per this pleading itself, those applicants were not then claiming right adverse or hostile to the title of the true owner. As per statement given by Maibam Tomba Singh (PW1), Secretary of the plaintiff, previous Secretary of the society applied to the State Government for allotment of the suit-lands to the Society and the same is pending. At the time of cross-examination by the Government Advocate, PW1 is found to have stated that in the year 1994, an application was made to the State Government for allotment of the suit-lands. Sinam Krishna Singh, PW2, is also found to have given statement in his affidavit to the effect that applications were filed in 1969, 1989 and 1994 to the State Government for allotment of the suit-lands to the plaintiff. Naorem Gobhardhan Singh, (PW3), is also found to have given statement to the same effect in his affidavit. It is thus seen that as per statements of PW No. 1, PW No. and PW No. 3, even in the year 1994 i.e., just about 3 years before the filing of the suit, on the part of the said applicants, there was admission or recognition of the title of the State in respect of the suit-lands as evident from the fact of filing the application for allotment of the suit-lands. Thus, even in 1994, those persons, who were claiming to be in possession of the suit-lands were not having the requisite animus possidendi and as such the period for prescription did not commence even at the time just about three years before filing of the suit. 19. It is an admitted fact by the plaintiff that being aggrieved by the allotment order in respect of the suit-land-A in favour of the defendant No. 4, a writ petition being CR No. 816 of 1996 was filed challenging the allotment order but the case was dismissed on 18.9.1996 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. An appeal being WA No. 119 of 1996 was filed by the plaintiff challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal was dismissed. An appeal being WA No. 119 of 1996 was filed by the plaintiff challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal was dismissed. A certified copy of the judgment of the Division Bench passed in WA No. 119 of 1996 on 6.1.1997 is exhibited as Exhibit-A/148 on behalf of the plaintiff. From the said judgment of the Division Bench, it can also be ascertained that the plaintiff applied for allotment of the said land to the concerned authorities of the State. There is also nothing to show that the plaintiff-petitioner claimed adverse possession clearly and as such having acquired ownership over the suit-lands as against the State in the said writ petition filed only a year before filing the original suit. It appears that on failure to get allotment of the suit-lands in its favour and also on failure to get an order quashing the allotment order passed in favour of the Director General of Police, Manipur, the plaintiff started asserting adverse possession in respect of the suit-lands as against the State by filing the original suit. The Division Bench was of the view that the petitioner (the plaintiff) had also failed to show any superior title or better right to challenge the allotment. Further it is to be noted that as per findings of the Division Bench, the petitioner (the plaintiff) may be in possession of the said suit-lands but not as a title holder. In fact, the petitioner (the plaintiff) was found to have been imposed penalty of Rs. 2,500 for being an encroacher. The fact of filing the said application to the concerned authority of the State for allotment of the suit-lands in its favour just about 3 years before filing the original suit coupled with the fact of failure on the part of the plaintiff to mention specifically about adverse possession of the said lands in the writ petition clearly show that the plaintiff never claimed hostile title in respect of the said lands as against the State till the time within a short period of filing the suit. In my opinion, the said facts are indicative of the plaintiff's recognition and admission as regards the title of the State in respect of the suit-lands. In my opinion, the said facts are indicative of the plaintiff's recognition and admission as regards the title of the State in respect of the suit-lands. Had the plaintiff been claiming adverse possession in respect of the suit-lands, in stead of applying for allotment, it would have applied for recording its name as owner in the relevant land records. The above said materials facts and circumstances, which can very well be ascertained from the pleadings and evidences of the plaintiff, are found not to have been taken into account by the trial court before deciding the issue of adverse possession in favour of the plaintiff. 20. Keeping in view the pleadings of the plaintiff and the reliefs sought in the suit, the pivotal issue involved in the said suit is if the plaintiff has acquired title in respect of the suit-lands by virtue of adverse possession as against the State or not. Though Issue No. 1 framed by the trial court, i.e., "Whether the members of plaintiff society and its predecessors-in-interest have been exclusively, continuously, openly and adversely possessing the suit lands "A" and "B" for the last more than 30 years" is closely related to the above noted pivotal issue, their difference is also to be noted. Since the plaintiff is a registered farming cooperative society, it has a distinct legal personality of its own quite separate from its members.. A finding that the members of the plaintiff have been in adverse possession of the suit-lands for the period of more than 30 years will not amount to adverse possession of the said lands by the plaintiff unless there are evidences to prove that the said members have been possessing as stated as per decision of and on behalf of the plaintiff only and not on their respective individual capacities of the said members. In the light of the above considerations, in my opinion, the Issue No. 1 is found not properly framed and it should have been framed reflecting the correct pivotal issue involved in the suit. However, both sides are conscious of the said pivotal issue involved in the suit and there is no submission from any of the parties that they have been prejudiced in producing their respective evidences because of the said not framing of the issue clearly and specifically reflecting the pivotal issue involved in the suit. 21. However, both sides are conscious of the said pivotal issue involved in the suit and there is no submission from any of the parties that they have been prejudiced in producing their respective evidences because of the said not framing of the issue clearly and specifically reflecting the pivotal issue involved in the suit. 21. As per evidences before the court, the plaintiff was registered as a Collective Farming Society vide Certificate of Registration No. 12 of 1995-96 of the office of the District Cooperative Officer, Imphal dated 8.12.1995. Accordingly, by virtue of the provisions of Section 36 of the Manipur Cooperative Societies Act, 1976, the plaintiff became a legal person having capacity to own and possess property etc. only with effect from the date of its registration. Before the said date, there was no legal existence of the plaintiff and as such, it could not have been in possession of any land in its own name and capacity. It is well settled that title by adverse possession in the course of acquisition is heritable, transferable and devisable. Accordingly, one adverse possession can tack the period of his own possession to the period of adverse possession held by another through whom he derived his title so as to make up the required statutory period. If there are two independent trespassers, the possession of the one trespasser cannot be tacked on to the possession of another trespasser so as to enable him to prescribe for a right by adverse possession. The general principle regarding the tacking of possession of separate trespasser is that it will be tacked if the second trespasser derives his possession from the first or in other words, they have any jural relationship. But this cannot be done if the two trespassers are independent of each other and the second has obtained possession otherwise then through the first. In the present case, what is required to be proved by the plaintiff by producing cogent and reliable evidences is that it is entitled to tack its own alleged adverse possession to the period of alleged adverse possession held by individual members and others before the date of its registration so as to make up the statutory period of 30 years. The plaintiff will be entitled to the said tacking if it derived its alleged adverse possession from the said individual members and others and if it Continued in possession of the property for the statutory period under one and identical title under which the said individual members and others were possessing. 22. All the PWs (PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5) are found to have testified to the effect that members of the plaintiff have been in possession of the suit-lands by growing paddy and seasonal vegetables from time to time and also by rearing fish. On the basis of the said testimony, one cannot reasonably conclude that the said members of the plaintiff have been possessing the suit-lands on behalf of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit-lands. It is nowhere clarified if the possession of the suit-lands by the members of the plaintiff is in their respective individual capacities or if the said possession by the members is on behalf of the plaintiff. There is nothing to show that the plaintiff passed any resolution authorizing its members to possess the suit-lands on its own behalf. In the plaint, it is alleged that when the individual members were possessing and enjoying parts/portion of the suit-lands in their individual capacities, they felt the necessity to form a collective farming society as early as in the year 1960. Further, it is alleged in the plaint that the individual members proposed to form a collective farming association for the common enjoyment of the suit-lands. The above said allegations in the plaint are not testified by any of the PWs. Moreover, allegation made in the plaint is to the fact that neighboring local landless farmers, some of whom were the predecessors-in-interest of the members with some of its existing members, encroached upon the areas covered by the suit-lands which were previously lying unused, about 45 years ago for the purpose of cultivation and for earning their means of survival. PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 are found to have given statement to the effect that they along with many landless farmers including the predecessors-in-interest of some of the members of the society encroached upon the suit-lands. None of the PWs is found to have given statement explaining as to how the said possession of PWs and other landless farmers became the possession of the plaintiff. None of the PWs is found to have given statement explaining as to how the said possession of PWs and other landless farmers became the possession of the plaintiff. In the absence of any evidence before the court, on behalf of the plaintiff, it is not clear as to how and when the plaintiff derived the possession of the suit-lands from the said other individual possessors. In the facts and circumstances, one cannot reasonably conclude that the plaintiff is entitled to tack its own alleged adverse possession to the period of alleged adverse possession held by some of the individual members and others. 23. Apart from the non-production of evidence to show the entitlement of the plaintiff to tack its own alleged adverse possession to the period of alleged adverse possession of some of the individual members and others, on the basis of the pleadings of the plaintiff and statements given by the PW1, PW2 and PW3 about the filing of applications to the State Government at different stages for allotment of the suit-lands, one can reasonably conclude that the said possession of the suit-lands by the plaintiff as well as by others before it was not one asserting hostile title adverse to the title of the State in respect of the said lands. By filing the said application to the State praying for allotment of the suit-lands, those applicants were admitting and recognizing the title of the State in respect of the suit-lands and as such, there was no adverse possession on the part of the said applicants i.e., those so-called predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff. 24. One of the documents relied by the trial court in deciding the case in favour of the plaintiff is Exhibit-A/164. It is a letter dated 23.11.1995 purportedly written by the Director of Settlement and Land Records, Manipur to the District Cooperative Officer, Imphal on the subject of allotment of land measuring 125 acres for agricultural purposes at 91(A-Lamphelpat) in favour of 130 members of the Lamphelpat Collective Farming Cooperative Societies, Ltd. As per the said letter, the proposed lands for allotment have been under physical possession of 130 members of said society using the said lands for agriculture purposes since about 30 years. No particulars other than mentioning the particular of the village as 91(A) Lamphelpat is given to show that the lands referred to in the said letter is the suit-lands or any of them. It is further said in the letter that the said members are the recorded encroachers as per land records maintained by the Directorate. The fact of processes having been started for allotment on the basis of the application submitted by the Society is also found mentioned. There is nothing to show that the said letter was issued after an enquiry under provisions of any law in respect of the fact of physical possession by 130 members mentioned therein. The correctness of the facts mentioned was not proved by producing the concerned officer as a witness before the court. No explanation is given from the side of the plaintiff as to how the said letter dated 23.11.1995 is mentioning about the physical possession by 130 members of the Society, which was not also, in fact, having legal existence at the time, when the case of the plaintiff is also that there are only 125 members of the Society. 25. The Director of Settlement and Land Records is one of the revenue officers who may be appointed by the Government under Section 4 of the Manipur Land Records and Land Reforms Act, 1960. As per the provisions of Section 6 of the said Act, the Director of Settlement and Land Records shall have the power to take cognizance of all matters connected with the survey of land and the settlement of revenue rights and preparation and maintenance of land records and other registers and shall exercise all such powers and perform all such duties as may be prescribed by any general or special order of the State Government published in the official gazette. There is nothing to show that the Director of Settlement and Land Records has any authority to decide the question of possession in respect of Government lands. It cannot be considered as a part of his official duty to inform the District Cooperative Officer regarding the question of possession of any Government land by anybody. There is nothing to show that the Director of Settlement and Land Records has any authority to decide the question of possession in respect of Government lands. It cannot be considered as a part of his official duty to inform the District Cooperative Officer regarding the question of possession of any Government land by anybody. No doubt, since the Director of Settlement and Land Records is concerned, inter-alia, with the preparation and maintenance of the land records and other registers, he may be in a position to know as to whose name is recorded in the relevant land records as an encroacher or possessor in respect of any Government land. Even then, the relevant evidence for proving the said fact is either the said land records or their certified copies and not a letter written or a certificate given by the Director of Settlement and Land Records stating the said fact. There is no any provision in the Manipur Cooperative Societies Act, 1976 under which any such letter or certificate recording possession of any land is required to be obtained from the Director of Settlement and Land Records before allowing registration of a cooperative society. The certificate of registration, which is marked as Exbt. A-165 is a conclusive evidence that the plaintiff is duly registered, unless it is proved that the registration of the society has been cancelled. It has no evidentiary value for showing that the plaintiff has been in adverse possession of any land. In my opinion, the said letter, Exbt. A/164 is not of any value for proving the alleged actual possession of the suit-lands by the member of the society for a period of 30 years. It was illegal and improper on the part of the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur East to rely on the said letter. 26. Even assuming that the fact of actual possession of the said lands by the members of the society for 30 years mentioned in the letter (Exbt. A/164) is correct, it is to be noted that mere possession without the claim of right for however long time, is not sufficient to create adverse possession. The possession and the adverse possession do not mean the same thing. Mere possession will not constitute adverse possession unless accompanied by assertion of hostile title. The said letter (Exbt. A/164) is correct, it is to be noted that mere possession without the claim of right for however long time, is not sufficient to create adverse possession. The possession and the adverse possession do not mean the same thing. Mere possession will not constitute adverse possession unless accompanied by assertion of hostile title. The said letter (Exbt. A/164) clearly states that the said Society has submitted application requesting for allotment of the lands encroached by it. As already discussed above, the fact of filing the application for allotment, which is mentioned in the said letter, shows admission or recognition of the ownership of the State in respect of the said lands. The said letter (Exbt. A/164) itself shows that by filing the said application, the society did not claim any hostile title as against the State and as such, there was no adverse possession on the part of the Society or its members. 27. At para. 5 of the plaint, it is pleaded by the plaintiff that when the Manipur Land Records and Land Reforms Act, 1960 came into force on 1.7.1961 and thereafter, during the course of survey operation of the Lamphelpat areas, Dag-Chithas were prepared after spot verifications and on the basis of actual possession and while such records of rights were prepared, the name of the Society was recorded in the relevant column of the Dag-Chithas showing as the actual possessor. As per statement of PW1, Exbt. A/1 to A/144 are the certified to be true copies of the Dag-Chithas showing the Secretary, Lamphelpat Collective Farming Cooperative Society as the occupier in respect of the suit-lands. These Dag-Chithas are indisputably documents in the nature of revenue records and they are prepared by public servants in discharge of their statutory functions and as such, they are relevant under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. However, these Dag-Chithas are not records of rights which have finally been published under Section 43(2) of the Manipur Land Records and Land Reforms Act, 1960 read with relevant provisions of Chapter V of the Manipur Land Records and Land Reforms Rules, 1961 and as such, there is no any presumption of correctness under Section 43(3) of the said Act in respect of the said entries of the Secretary, Lamphelpat Collective Farming Cooperative Society as occupier. 28. 28. It is not explained by the plaintiff as to how and why if particulars of the plaintiff or their alleged predecessors-in-interest were in possession of the suit-lands before the registration of the plaintiff, instead of recording the names of the said members or their alleged predecessors-in-interest, Secretary, Lamphelpat Collective Farming Cooperative Society was recorded as occupier in the said Dag-Chithas in respect of the suit-lands. Since the said recording was admittedly before the registration of the plaintiff, i.e., before its legal existence, it is inconceivable that the concerned officials did not perceive the need for recording the names of those individuals who were said to be in actual occupation of the suit-lands instead of recording the Secretary of the then not in existence Society (the plaintiff) as the occupier. At the same time, there is no appreciable reason as to why the Secretary of the then not in existence Society, was recorded as the occupier of the suit-lands when the said Society was to become owner in its own name. It was, in fact, incongruous on the part of the concerned revenue officials to record the Secretary of the then not in existence Society as occupier of the suit-lands. As per testimony of PW3, prior to the registration of the Society, its name was "Lamphelpat Collective Farming Cooperative Society" and at the time of registration, it was named as "Lamphelpat Collective Farming Cooperative Society." It is thus very strange as to how the name of the then not existing Cooperative Society was recorded instead of recording the then existing name of the Society. Further, even though the pleading of the plaintiff is to the effect that the said recording was done within a short period of the enforcement of the Manipur Land Records and Land Reforms Act, 1960, PW3 is found to have admitted at the time of cross-examination that the said Dag-Chithas were prepared and issued in the year 1992 only In the above facts and circumstances, not much reliance is to be placed on the said Dag-Chithas, Exbt. A/1 to A/144. It was not proper on the part of the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur East to rely on the said Dag-Chithas wholly without considering the above said conspicuous incongruities. 29. A/1 to A/144. It was not proper on the part of the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur East to rely on the said Dag-Chithas wholly without considering the above said conspicuous incongruities. 29. In the light of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that there is no sufficient and legally acceptable evidence to prove the case of the plaintiff about its having acquired title in respect of the suit-lands on the basis of its adverse possession as against the State. All the PWs are interested witnesses. PW1 and PW2 are the Secretary and the President respectively of the plaintiff. PW3, PW4 and PW5 are the members of the plaintiff. No independent witnesses is produced on behalf of the plaintiff. The statements of the PWs are general and vague. In the facts and circumstances already discussed above, no reliance is to be placed on the oral Statements of the interested PWs. There is no need to examine the evidences on the. side of the defendants. The plaintiff has failed to discharge its burden of proving the pivotal issue of adverse possession involved in the case. 30. In view of the failure on the part of the plaintiff to establish the pivotal issue of adverse possession which is basis of its case by cogent and reliable evidences, there is no need of examining the legality or otherwise of the allotment of the suit-lands-"A" in favour of the defendant No. 4. It is already seen that the plaintiff challenged the said allotment order by filing CR No. 816 of 1996 but the said case was dismissed. The appeal before the Division Bench being WA No. 119 of 1996 filed as against the dismissal order was also dismissed by holding that the learned Single Judge's view about the failure of the writ petitioner (the plaintiff) to show superior title or better right to challenge the allotment was justified and that disputes and title cannot be gone into a writ petition. In the suit, the plaintiff has challenged the legality of the said allotment order on the ground that it had already acquired title on the suit-lands by virtue of its adverse possession for the statutory period of 30 years. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove is alleged acquisition of title by virtue of adverse possession, it has no locus-standi to challenge the said allotment. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove is alleged acquisition of title by virtue of adverse possession, it has no locus-standi to challenge the said allotment. If there is any defect in the allotment process or in the allotment order, it is a matter in between the State and the allottees. In fact, by allotting the said land in favour of the defendant No. 4, the State has taken steps for utilizing the said lands for the purpose connected with the State Police department. Reasons given by the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur East are not sufficient for interfering with the impugned allotment order (Exbt. A/145) at the instance of the plaintiff. 31. There is no need for discussing the other issues in the suit. Since the plaintiff has failed to establish the basis of its case, it is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed in the suit. The impugned judgment and decree are not sustainable in the eyes of the law. They are hereby set aside. These appeals are allowed to the extent mentioned above. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.