JUDGMENT & ORDER : This is an appeal from the judgment dated 18.06.2014 delivered in Title Appeal No.13 of 2013 by the District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur [now Gomati Judicial District]. By the said judgment dated 18.06.2014, the judgment dated 04.06.2013 delivered in Title Suit No.01 of 2012 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sabroom, South Tripura has been reversed on dismissing the suit. 2. The respondent No.1 herein, instituted the suit being Title Suit No.01 of 2012 for declaration of title and for recovery of possession with mesne profit. One Narayan Chandra Nath [the Proforma-defendant] was the owner in possession of a tract of land measuring 1 kani 4 1/2 gandas, equivalent to .49 acre. The entire land was recorded in khatian No.262 of Mouja Doulbari under Sabroom Tehsil Kachari pertaining to C.S. (old) plot No.702. By the sale deed No.1-144 dated 21.04.1988, the said land was entirely sold to the plaintiff. The land measuring .49 acre has been described in the Schedule–A of the plaint which is hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”. The land was mutated in the name of the plaintiff by a new khatian No.460 and the said khatian was finally published in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had started to reside over that land by constructing hut. On 03.03.2011, the appellant by applying force constructed a hut on the northern part of the land. The plaintiff could not resist him. He had made a complaint to the Village headman. On discussion, the plaintiff filed an application for demarcation of his land by posting piller. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sabroom took sufficient time to pass the order for demarcation. On 03.11.2011 the tehsilder sent a notice to both the parties intimating them to take over their respective jote. After such notice, the demarcation went underway and it was found that out of .49 acre of land .14 stood encroached by the defendant-appellant. The plaintiff tried to impress upon the defendant-appellant for vacation but in vain. The matter was reported also to the Sabroom police station but the police did not take any action. Finally, the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit. 3. The plaintiff tried to impress upon the defendant-appellant for vacation but in vain. The matter was reported also to the Sabroom police station but the police did not take any action. Finally, the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit. 3. By filing the written statement, the defendant-appellant has clearly stated that the plaintiff-respondent had no right, title and interest over the suit land and he had acquired adverse title on the suit land due to continuous possession therein demonstrating hostility to the original owner namely Narayan Chandra Nath. According to the defendant, the parcel of land measuring 0.20 acre of land appertaining to khatian No.262, C.S. Plot No.703 at Mouja-Doulbari was purchased from Narayan Chandra Nath on 11.05.1982 by the registered deed No.1-477 without delivery of possession from Narayan Chandra Nath. Thus, the defendant-appellant had in his written statement categorically stated that he has been occupying the suit land measuring 0.14 acre in the northern part of the Schedule-A land. The said occupation was forceful, denying anyone’s right or lien over the said land. The trial court has framed the issues which are as under : “1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in its present form and nature ? 2. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land ? 3. Whether the principal defendant has perfected his right, title and interest by way of adverse possession over the suit land from which his eviction is sought for by the plaintiff ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get recovery of possession of the suit land as sought for in the plaint ? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit ? If so, to what extent ? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages as prayed for ? 7. What other relief or relieves the parties are entitled to?” 4. After recording the evidence and appreciation thereof, the trial court had returned the finding that the possession of the defendant-appellant over the suit land had become hostile to the plaintiff since 05.08.1988 and possession of the defendant-appellant over the suit land was continuous and undisturbed. 5. 7. What other relief or relieves the parties are entitled to?” 4. After recording the evidence and appreciation thereof, the trial court had returned the finding that the possession of the defendant-appellant over the suit land had become hostile to the plaintiff since 05.08.1988 and possession of the defendant-appellant over the suit land was continuous and undisturbed. 5. The trial court having referred to Section 27 read with Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has observed that at least from 05.08.1988 the plaintiff was not in possession on the suit land and according to the trial court, the title of the plaintiff-respondent got extinguished by lapse of statutory period of twelve years. Hence, the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land, excluding the land measuring 0.14 acre. The trial court has in consequence dismissed the prayer for recovery of the suit land. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 04.06.2013 delivered in Title Suit No.01 of 2012 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sabroom, South Tripura, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 preferred an appeal under Section 96 being Title Appeal No.13 of 2013 in the court of the District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, as he then was. In the memorandum of appeal the plaintiff-respondent has raised the plea that the defendant-appellant failed to prove animus possendei or any incident which demonstrates hostility to the true owner for a period more that statutory limit. Even in the khatian No.460, opened in the name of the plaintiff-respondent, the defendant-appellant was not shown as the forceful occupier. Thus, the finding of the trial court cannot be sustained in law. In crux, the plaintiff-respondent has projected the objection that mere long possession, even if it is assumed that for a period more than twelve years but without intention to possess the suit land adversely, cannot result in the acquisition of title by prescription. That apart, the defendant-appellant in his deposition has admitted that he did not assert his adverse possession against anyone, to say least to the true owner. Even though, the previous owner was made a party but he did not file any written statement or lead any evidence. By the judgment dated 18.06.2014, which has been challenged by this appeal, the first appellate court accepted the plea of the plaintiff-respondent and observed as under : “Specific date of adverse possession is to be proved by the defendant-respondent. Even though, the previous owner was made a party but he did not file any written statement or lead any evidence. By the judgment dated 18.06.2014, which has been challenged by this appeal, the first appellate court accepted the plea of the plaintiff-respondent and observed as under : “Specific date of adverse possession is to be proved by the defendant-respondent. Automatically and impliedly, such date cannot be imagined as is done by the court below. It was imagined that on the date of purchase of the land by the plaintiff-appellant in the year 1988, the possession of the defendant-respondent over the land became hostile. There is no scope to draw such presumption. Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) relied on the Exbt.8 submitted by the Amin of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Amin reported that on 17.08.1988, there was no boundary over the dag land. In the demarcation report submitted before the S.D.M. vide Exbt. C, it was reported that 0.03 acres under C.S. Plot No.702 owned by the present applicant i.e. the plaintiff-appellant is under possession of Manada Sundari Debnath. That report given in the year, 1989. So, the report is only about the possession. Mere long possession by the defendant-respondent more than 12 years, even 100 years without intention, how possessed against the title of the true owner and to knowledge, cannot help on the matter of acquisition of title. From the report, it is clear that there was no boundary in the dag land of plaintiff and defendant. So, an attempt was taken for demarcation which failed. The defendant-respondent did not specifically say that he was aware about the title of true owner i.e. the plaintiff-appellant and denying the title of true owner, he was possessing the land.” Having observed that mere long possession even for a period of more than twelve years without intention to possess the suit land adversely cannot result in the acquisition of title by prescription. The appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on directing recovery of the encroached land which has been specifically described in the schedule of the suit land. The appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on directing recovery of the encroached land which has been specifically described in the schedule of the suit land. At the time of admitting the appeal, the following substantial question of law was formulated by this court by the order dated 28.10.2014 : “Whether the finding that the title of the plaintiffs, the respondents herein, had been extinguished in terms of Article 65 read with Section 27 of the Limitation Act has been interfered on perverse reading of the evidence?” 7. Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellants has strenuously argued that the defendant-appellant in his written statement has specifically stated that he had been adversely possessing part of the suit land measuring .14 acre entering there forcibly on 12.08.1982. Thereafter, he constructed hut and as such, he had shown adversity to the true owner with effect from 12.08.1982. Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel has submitted that in the evidence, the defendant-appellant (DW-1) has categorically stated as under : “The suit land had been possessing (sic) by the father of plaintiff Umesh Chandra Debnath forcibly and he was forceful occupier for land measuring 0.14 acre belonging to Narayan Chandra Nath.” Again, the defendant-appellant has stated that he had constructed dwelling hut, kitchen, bathroom etc on the suit land after entering therein in the year 1982 without any resistance or any objection from any corner including Narayan Chandra Nath (the previous owner). 8. Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel has further submitted that the story of dispossession as stated in the plaint is in this perspective cannot be believed and rightly, the trial court has disbelieved that the plaintiff was only dispossessed on 05.12.2011. Even the first appellate court did not believe that part of the pleading. 9. Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel has relied on a decision of this court in Anjan Dey and Others versus Sarba Dharma Mission [judgment dated 08.12.2015 delivered in RFA No.08 of 2012] to contend that in a similar circumstances, the court had accepted the plea of adverse possession. In the said judgment, it has been observed as under : “It is not the case of the plaintiff that they permitted them to do such work and on 05.02.2006 they demonstrated the hostility to them. In the said judgment, it has been observed as under : “It is not the case of the plaintiff that they permitted them to do such work and on 05.02.2006 they demonstrated the hostility to them. According to the plaintiff, they were in the possession and they have been dispossessed from the suit land on 05.02.2006. A cumulative reading of the evidence would show that the plaintiffs have not only suppressed the material facts from the court, but also failed to rebut the entry appearing under column 24 of the khatian (Exbt.A.1). Hence, it has to be held that the defendants have successfully proved that they are adversely possessing the suit land at least since 1975. It is required to be noted that it was the 27 RFA No.8 of 2012 Page 27 of 29 plaintiff’s onus to rebut the said entry by placing proper records before the court to show that such entry was either made collusively or not based on proper inquiry. On the contrary, the defendants, by adducing three witnesses viz. DWs. 1, 2 and 3, have successfully proved their possession over the land. The trial court has definitely misconstrued the provisions of law as provided under Section 101 of the Evidence Act. As to the existence of fact, onus is always with the person who is bound to prove the existence of such fact as he has claimed that the said fact existed. Similarly, Section 103 of the Evidence Act has more definitely provided that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.” 10. Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel has submitted that there is no dispute that more than twelve years as provided under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the defendant-appellant had been occupying the part of the suit land being .14 acre demonstrating hostility [animus] to the title of the true owner. The true owner did not contest that fact and as such, this court would be inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by the first appellate court and restore the judgment passed by the trial court. 11. From the other side, Mr. The true owner did not contest that fact and as such, this court would be inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by the first appellate court and restore the judgment passed by the trial court. 11. From the other side, Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents has submitted that so far the exposition of the law is concerned, the first appellate court has correctly laid the principles of law and applied the said principles in the fact of the case. He has drawn attention of this court to the cross-examination of the defendant-appellant (DW-1) to assert that there was no demonstration of hostility. It was a surreptitious act taking advantage of absence of the well-demarcated boundary around the tracts of land. DW-1 (the defendant-appellant) in the cross-examination has clearly stated that : “It is fact that I did not tell to anyone about my adverse possession of the suit land though I pleaded the same in my written statement. It is fact that I did not submit any objection before any authority against recording of the name of Murari Debnath. The plaintiff has become owner in respect of the suit land. I also did not make any application to record my name as forceful occupier of the suit land in the khatian concerned. It is the fact that I purchased the land in the year 1982 from Narayan ch. Debnath and Murari Debnath also purchased land from Narayan ch. Debnath in the year 1988. It is fact that my vendor handed over possession of my purchased land without any measurement. It is fact parents and brother of the plaintiff were buried in the land of Dag No.702(Old).” 12. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel has submitted that it shows that even after purchase in the year 1988 the land was under possession of the plaintiff and he buried his parents and the brother over the suit land. No doubt, it clearly stands to show that the defendant-appellant failed to prove his own pleading, rather his deposition has clearly supported the case of the plaintiff. 13. Having appreciated the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized the records, this court is of the view that the defendant-appellant has failed to prove nec vi, nec clam, nec precario i.e. peaceful, open and continuous in possession. 13. Having appreciated the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized the records, this court is of the view that the defendant-appellant has failed to prove nec vi, nec clam, nec precario i.e. peaceful, open and continuous in possession. The possession must be adverse in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful dispossession of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. The fact of exclusive possession couched with animus possidendi is essentially required to acquire title by prescription in exclusion to the actual owner and that is the most important factor, those which has 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 of 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 true owner [the plaintiff herein] (d) how long his possession had continued, and (e) whether his possession if was open and undisturbed. 14. In terms of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date, when the right of ownership arose to the plaintiff but it had commenced from the date when the defendant’s possession became adverse. Animus possidendi is one of the universally acknowledged principle to determine adverse possession. Unless the person, possessing the land has the requisite animus, the period for prescription does not commence. In this case, the defendant-appellant has himself admitted that he did not demonstrate adversity to anyone even did not tell anyone that without title he has been possessing that part of the land. It has been described by the apex court in Kshitish Chandra Bose versus Commissioner of Ranchi reported in AIR 1981 SC 707 as under : “All that the law requires is that the possession must be open and without any attempt at concealment. It is not necessary that the possession must be so effective so as to bring it to the specific knowledge of the owner. It is not necessary that the possession must be so effective so as to bring it to the specific knowledge of the owner. Such a requirement may be insisted on, where an ouster of title is pleaded but that is not the case here.” 15. It has been clarified by the apex court in a series of decisions that possession shall be open and exclusive. The fact that the defendant-appellant did not know who the real owner was, will not make his possession adverse. In some judgments, it has been also observed that the plea of adverse possession will not be available, if the adverse possessor does not know who the true owner is. However, there is another set of decisions which lays down that the ignorance about the true owner takes away the proclaimed title by prescription. Be that as it may, first and foremost requirement is the intention to possess with adversity and that is of paramount consideration. “Intention to dispossess” has been appreciated by Slade, J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd. & Ors v. Graham : (2003) 1 AC 414. It has been observed by the Court of Appeal [England and Wales] as under : “What is really meant, in my judgment, is that the animus possidendi involves the intention, in one’s own name and on one’s own behalf, to exclude the world at large, including the owner with the paper title if he be not himself the possessor, so far as is reasonably practicable and so far as the processes of the law will allow.” 16. In this case, what this court has observed is that in one hand the defendant-appellant has stated that the land which the plaintiff sought recovery was under possession of the plaintiff’s father at the relevant point of time when the defendant-appellant has claimed to have come to possession over the said land. This statement made in the trial by the defendant-appellant has demolished the very foundation of his plea. Immediately, thereafter, what he has stated in his cross-examination is equally damaging, if not disastrous, for his case of adverse possession. He has further stated that he did not tell anyone that he was adversely possessing the land of the plaintiff-respondent or his predecessor and the same has been assured in the written statement. 17. Immediately, thereafter, what he has stated in his cross-examination is equally damaging, if not disastrous, for his case of adverse possession. He has further stated that he did not tell anyone that he was adversely possessing the land of the plaintiff-respondent or his predecessor and the same has been assured in the written statement. 17. On cumulative assessment of all the evidentiary materials as placed in the records, this court has been persuaded to affirm the finding as returned by the first appellate court. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Draw the decree accordingly. Send down the records thereafter.