JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2012 delivered in Title Appeal No.35 of 2009 by the District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, as it then was, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellants from the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2009 delivered in Title Suit No.23 of 2008 was affirmed. 3. Challenging that judgment of affirmation, this appeal has been filed and while admitting this appeal the following substantial question of law was formulated. “Whether the courts below have committed patent illegality on decreeing the suit for recovery of possession by not considering the aspect of limitation vis-a-vis the continuous possession of the defendant-appellant?” 4. The brief facts are placed at the outset considering those relevant for appreciating the substantial question of law. The respondents filed the suit being Title Suit No.23 of 2008 for declaration of right, title and interest on the suit land as described in the schedule appended below the plaint and the prayer as couched along with is also for a decree of recovery of possession by evicting the defendants, the appellant herein and a decree for mesne profit for Rs.10,000/- per year from the date of dispossession i.e. 15.07.2007 till the recovery. The plaintiffs pleaded that one Krishna Kr. Bhowmik was the sole owner in possession of the land comprised in Khatian No.159, plot Nos.858, 921, 937, 943, 944 and 945, measuring 2.9 acres in the MoujaSouth Kalapania. Krishna Kr. Bhowmik sold the entire land as stated to the original plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and to one Paresh Ch. Majumder, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff Nos.3(a) to 3 (g) by a registered deed of sale under deed No.1-457 dated 23.07.1974 and the sole owner caused the delivery of possession on the same date. During the revisional survey, the suit land was recorded in RS Khatian No.221/1 and 221/2 in the name of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and Paresh Ch. Majumder since deceased as the joint owners-in-possession. Paresh Chandra Majumder died on 18.09.2003 leaving behind the added plaintiff Nos.3(a) to 3(g). Subsequently, the plaintiff-respondent No.3(a) namely Kananbala Majumder wife of Paresh Ch. Majumder also died. But she is represented by the legal heirs who were already on record. Majumder since deceased as the joint owners-in-possession. Paresh Chandra Majumder died on 18.09.2003 leaving behind the added plaintiff Nos.3(a) to 3(g). Subsequently, the plaintiff-respondent No.3(a) namely Kananbala Majumder wife of Paresh Ch. Majumder also died. But she is represented by the legal heirs who were already on record. It is pleaded by the respondents that on 15.07.2007 while the original plaintiffs were working in the suit land, the appellants forcibly entered into that land and dispossessed them. Earlier, they were not only in the possession but they used to enjoy the usufructs from that land. According to the plaintiff, they used to grow 70 mounds of Aush and Poush paddy per kani from the suit land and calculating on the market value i.e. per mound paddy at Rs.340/-, they have prayed for a decree of mesne profit to the extent of Rs.10,000/- per year. The another substituted plaintiff, namely Prabhat Majumder died and his legal heirs namely Sabita Majumder and Sannati Majumder (minor) were also substituted. The appellants, the defendants in the suit, by filing a joint written statement seriously controverted the pleadings and stated that Krishna Kr. Bhowmik was never in possession. The transaction as carried out by the sale deed No.1-457 dated 27.03.1974 was sham as Krishna Kr. Bhowmik never came into possession. The appellants have been continuing in the possession uninterruptedly. As such, the story of dispossession is an act of concoction. The defendants, however, in their written statement have stated that the original plaintiffs prayed for mutation of the records in the year 1975 but such mutation was denied. Finally, in the year 1999 the plaintiffs, according to the defendants, “managed to get mutation” of the suit land in the form of said khatians No.221/1 and 221/2. According to the defendants, in the year 1962 during the period of cadastral survey as carried out in terms of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 and the Rules made thereunder, record of rights was created in favour of one Rana Ch. Mog in khatian No.96 of Mouja South Kalapania but they have admitted that the relevant mouja was Uttar Kalapania. After death of Rana Mog, his son Refru Mog, who is appellant No.3 herein, started possessing the suit land. The defendants based on such statement, claimed that the suit land is the part of the allotted land in the name of Rana Ch Mog. After death of Rana Mog, his son Refru Mog, who is appellant No.3 herein, started possessing the suit land. The defendants based on such statement, claimed that the suit land is the part of the allotted land in the name of Rana Ch Mog. For adjudicating the dispute and taking the suit to its logical end, issues were framed inter alia “Whether the plaintiff lost the remedy of declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of possession in adverse possession of the suit land by the defendants?” While deciding that issue, the trial court has observed that: “The ordinary classical requirement of adverse possession is that it should be nec vi, nec clam and nec precario, that is it should be peaceful, open and continuous. (i) nec vi – This means neither by force, if the rightful owner of the property is constantly visiting the property, trying to get possession but the adverse possessor is throwing him out land is maintaining his wrongful possession by force, then his adverse possession does not begin. (ii) nec clam – This means neither secretly, if the possession of the wrongful possessor is a guarded secret and the legal owner cannot be reasonable expected to know of the fact of the loss of possession to the wrongful occupier, then also adverse possession does not begin. (iii) nec precario – This means neither licence nor permission. If a person keeps a caretaker in his house and his duty is to take care 24 hours, without the owner being able to visit the property, even then the caretaker does not prescribe. This is because he does not occupy adversely, but with permission. It is also required that the possession must be continued. The defendant no.1 & 3 had no scrap of paper to show their possession over the suit land continuously to make their title by adverse possession of the prescribed period of limitation for more than 12 years which is in the instant case is a private property. They are stating that Rana Mog was the allottee of the suit land and said Rana Mog is the grandfather of the defendant no.1 and defendant no.1 is not claiming title by adverse possession against Rana Mog. They are stating that Rana Mog was the allottee of the suit land and said Rana Mog is the grandfather of the defendant no.1 and defendant no.1 is not claiming title by adverse possession against Rana Mog. But claiming right, title by the adverse possession against the present plaintiff whereas the plaintiffs had cogent paper regarding chain of title and possession over the suit land till dispossession for which the plaintiffs came before this Court. The plea of the defendant no.1 & 3 bears no substance. Now, we are coming to the stand taken by the defendant no.2, 4 & 5. They in their Written Statement stated that the suit land is allottee land of the father and grandfather of the defendants. According to their say the father of the defendant no.2 and grandfather of defendant no.1 Rana Mog being the allottee possessing the suit land since 1958. So the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. In disguises their say is that they are possessing the suit land. They have no cogent paper that the suit land is allotted land and as legal heirs the defendants are possessing the suit land. For arguments sake if they are possessing the suit land as successor of allottee since 1958 there should have certain land records. But the defendants have no land records. The defendants taking plea of adverse possession without any material required for perfection of title by adverse possession. The plaintiffs proved the right, title, interest over the suit land and the defendants failed to substantiate that the title of the suit land perfected in favour of them by adverse possession.” Thus, the trial court decided that the plea of adverse possession has not been proved by the judgment dated 24.09.2009 delivered in TS No.23 of 2008 by the Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., South Tripura, Udaipur. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC against the said judgment which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.12.2012 as delivered in the said first appeal being Title Appeal No.35 of 2009. Over that issue, while the first appellate court re-appreciated the evidence did not differ with the findings as returned by the trial court. 6. Mr. Over that issue, while the first appellate court re-appreciated the evidence did not differ with the findings as returned by the trial court. 6. Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the defendants have been adversely possessing the land continuously for more than the prescribed period of limitation as provided by Article 65 of the schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963. Article 65 clearly provides that it is not the continuous possession alone but it is adversity in the possession which is material and the period of limitation for purpose of determining the adverse possession starts from the day when hostility has been demonstrated by the person in possession against the true owner. 7. For existence of such unambiguous provision, it is a bounden duty of the person who is claiming adverse possession to aver and prove when the adversity was shown and how they are continuing thereafter in the possession. Even though both the courts below have observed that there is no documentary evidence, even if there may not be any documentary evidence but by reliable and cogent evidence it could be proved that there was adversity on certain day and thereafter they continued with the possession resisting the true owner from entering into the land which is, in the legal parlance, known as animus-possidend-it-he finding as returned could be faulted with. Unless that is proved to the satisfaction of the court, no court is going to declare or to uphold the defence based on the adverse possession. 8. After scanning the records thoroughly, this court does not find any such evidence in the records and as such, this court is not in a position to return a contrary finding against the concurrent finding as returned by the first appellate court. Hence, this appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. After drawing the decree in terms of the above, send down the LCRs. The stay order as passed earlier stands vacated.