JUDGMENT AND ORDER : This second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether uninterrupted unauthorized possession of the appellant shown in the finally published khatian stands reversed only because of publication of the record of rights in the revisional settlement survey operation omitting his name; (ii) Whether the plaintiff appellant acquired the right by prescription?” 2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. S. Deb, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. S. Dutta for the appellants and learned senior counsel, Mr. D. Chakraborty, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. H. Laskar for the respondents. 3. The appellants as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No.8 of 1995 in the Court of Munsiff, Kailashahar, North Tripura, seeking declaration of title, confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction over the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint. The suit land as described in the schedule of the plaint, for ready reference is reproduced which reads as follows: “Schedule Dist—North Tripura, P.S. Kailashahar, Mouja— Kailashahar town, TehsilKailashahar, Khatian No.2225 (standing in the name of plaintiff No.1), old c.s. plot No.2172(new c.s.plot No. 2066), area .042 acres, class—Dokan, old c.s. plot No. 2225 (new c.s. plot No.2065), area .0490 acres, class—Bagan(Bastu), khatian No. 1/31 (standing in the name of deendant No.3), old c.s. plot No. 2221 (new c.s. plot No.2069), area .108 acres, class—Pukur, Old c.s. plot No. 222 (new c.s. plot No.2070), area .044 acres, class—Pukurpar, Total area.234 acres of class Bastu, pond etc. being bounded as below : North : Jote Rashid Ali(and his vendor Puspalata paul in unauthorized possession), South : Bazar Galli, East : Subhas Datta and others, West : Karunamaya Dhar and others.” 4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land originally belonged to one Saraf Mahammed and after his death Manir Ali and Ainuri Bibi being the legal heirs of Saraf Mahammed inherited the suit property and they sold out the suit land to the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit land of plot No.2172(Hal plot No.2066) and plot No.2225(Hal plot No.2065) as described in the first part of the schedule of suit land mentioned above, by a registered deed of purchase dated 30.07.1990(registered on 31.07.1990) from Manir Ali and Ainuri Bibi, the said legal heirs of original jotedar Saraf Mahammed and got possession thereof. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the said Saraf Mahammed also in possession of other land which was described as pukur and pukurpar recorded in old plot No. 2221(Hal plot No.2069) and old plot No.2222 (Hal plot No.2070) and that was purchased by plaintiff No.2 by an unregistered deed dated 30.07.1990 on payment of consideration and got possession thereof. The plaintiffs contended that they have been possessing the suit land uninterruptedly exercising all acts of right, title, interest and possession but defendant No.1 on 07.04.1995 made some improper and baseless comments and thereby created cloud on the right, title, interest of the plaintiffs and hence the plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking declaration of their right, title and interest, confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction against the defendants. 5. Defendant No.1 did not contest the suit. Defendant No.2 submitted a joint written statement and they contended that the land of plot No.2221(Hal plot No.2069) and plot No.2222(Hal plot No.2070) of khatian No.1/31 was khas land and the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession over that plot of land. 6. The trial Court framed as many as four issues for decision. The plaintiffs adduced both oral and documentary evidence and the defendants also adduced oral evidence. 7. The trial Court partly decreed the suit. The Court declared right, title, interest, possession as well as injunction in respect of the land purchased by the plaintiff No.1 by registered deed dated 30.07.1990 in respect of khatian No.2235(Exbt.8) and dismissed the suit in respect of the other part of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint which plaintiff No.2 claimed to have purchased. The operative part of the judgment and order passed by the trial Court as contained in paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 of the judgment reads as follows: “31. In the result, the suit is partly decreed on contest against defendant No.2 and Exparte against defendant No.1 and 3. 32. Right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff No.1 over the suit land measuring 0.82 acre under Khatian No.2235 pertaining to old C.S. plot No.2172, 2225 corresponding to present C.S. plot No.2066 and 2065 of Kailashahar town mouja are hereby declared and confirmed and the defendants are permanently restrained from entering therein or disturbing possession of the plaintiff thereon. 33. Right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff No.1 over the suit land measuring 0.82 acre under Khatian No.2235 pertaining to old C.S. plot No.2172, 2225 corresponding to present C.S. plot No.2066 and 2065 of Kailashahar town mouja are hereby declared and confirmed and the defendants are permanently restrained from entering therein or disturbing possession of the plaintiff thereon. 33. The suit stands dismissed in respect of the other part of the suit land measuring 0.152 acre under khas khatian No.1/31 pertaining to old C.S. plot No.2221, 2222 corresponding to present C.S. plot No.2069 and 2070. Prepare decree accordingly. The parties are to bear their own costs. The suit stands disposed of on contest. Judgment is delivered in the open Court.” 8. The plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No.6 of 2003 in the Court of District Judge and the learned Addl. District Judge by judgment and decree dated 27.07.2004 dismissed the appeal. 9. Hence, this second appeal. 10. The plaintiffs claimed that the part of the suit land which plaintiff No.2 purchased by an unregistered deed dated 30.07.1990 (Exbt.10) belonged to Saraf Mahammed and the plaintiffs purchased the land from the legal heirs of Saraf Mahammed who were in possession. They have been possessing the suit land for more than 30 years exercising all acts of right, title and interest and so the plaintiffs acquired title over that part of the suit land. 11. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb has submitted that so far the pleadings made in para 3 of the plaint and the evidence adduced shows that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land all along exercising all acts of right, title and interest and that plaintiff No.2 purchased the suit land on 30.07.1990. That part of the suit land was recorded in khatian No.719 which was finally published on 09.02.1967 and that khatian shows that the predecessor of the plaintiffs i.e. Saraf Mahammed was in possession and that possession of Saraf Mahammed was continued and evolved on the plaintiffs and therefore the plaintiffs were entitled to get declaration. On the other hand, learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that the plaintiffs failed to prove their adverse possession over the part of the suit land which has been dismissed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court and there is no pleadings and evidence to prove adverse possession. 12. On the other hand, learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that the plaintiffs failed to prove their adverse possession over the part of the suit land which has been dismissed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court and there is no pleadings and evidence to prove adverse possession. 12. The claim of the plaintiffs in respect of the part of the suit land which has been dismissed by both the Courts below is based on Exbt.10, the unregistered deed dated 30.07.1990. It shows that it was an agreement between plaintiff No.2 and Manir Ali and Ainuri Bibi in respect of that part of the suit land that the said Manir Ali and Ainuri Bibi shall execute the registered sale deed after doing the needful of recording the suit land as jote land in their names. So, that agreement has no legal sanctity to determine the right, title and interest of the plaintiff No.2 in that part of the suit land since Manir Ali and Ainuri Bibi are not parties to the suit and Manir Ali and Ainuri ultimately did not execute any sale deed after correction of the records, as stated in the unregistered deed. 13. It is an admitted position that the land of plot No.2221(Hal plot No.2069) and 2222(Hal plot No.2070) are khas land which was originally recorded in khatian No.719, finally published on 09.02.1967(Exbt.2) and subsequently recorded in khatian No.1/31(Exbt.3). Exbt.2 shows that in respect of those two plots of land Saraf Mahammed was recorded as unlawful occupier but in Exbt.3 there is no such entry. 14. The plaintiffs failed to prove their title over the land of Hal khatian No.1/31. It has been argued that the plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession. 15. The concept of adverse possession contemplates a hostile possession i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner. Possession to be adverse must be possession by a person who does not acknowledge the others right but denies them. The principle of law is firmly established that a person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. The principle of law is firmly established that a person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. For deciding whether the alleged acts of a person constituted adverse possession, the animus of the person doing those acts is the most crucial factor. Burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove that their possession is hostile under a colour of title, actual, open, uninterrupted, notorious, exclusive and continuous. Adverse possession is made out by the coexistence of two distinguished ingredients; first, such a title as will afford colour, and second, such possession under it as will be adverse to the right of the true owner and title by adverse possession becomes complete only when the possession of the trespasser continues uninterruptedly for a full statutory period. 16. The plaintiffs in their pleadings simply stated that for more than 30 years they are in possession of that part of the suit land. As already stated hereinbefore, unauthorized occupation of Saraf Mahammed has been recorded in the finally published khatian No.719 and it shows that it was finally published on 09.02.1967. The plaintiffs did not utter a single word as to from which date Saraf Mahammed had been possessing the suit land denying the title of the true owner. There must be a specific statement as to from which date and time the possession became adverse to the rightful owner. The case of the plaintiffs is that the said part of the suit land was wrongly recorded as khas land and by executing Exbt.10 the successors of Saraf Mahammed assured plaintiff No.2 that the record of right will be corrected and appropriate sale deed will be executed. In the absence of any such sale deed, the plaintiffs, no doubt, can take a plea of adverse possession but that has to be strictly proved by the plaintiffs. While there is nothing in the pleadings or in the evidence as to from which date and time the plaintiffs or their predecessor entered into possession denying title of the rightful owner, no declaration can be given by the Court of law in favour of the plaintiffs as claimed. While there is nothing in the pleadings or in the evidence as to from which date and time the plaintiffs or their predecessor entered into possession denying title of the rightful owner, no declaration can be given by the Court of law in favour of the plaintiffs as claimed. Both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court arrived at a concurrent finding on the issue and I find nothing to interfere in the concurrent finding. The claim of adverse possession has to be proved strictly and while the suit land is a khas land and the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have been possessing the suit land denying title of the rightful owner, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court rightly dismissed that part of the claim of the plaintiffs. 17. The second appeal, is therefore, found to be devoid of any merit and hence stands dismissed. 18. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.