CHATII KONATI RAO & ORS.versusPALLE VENKATA SUBBA RAO

               [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 923


               CHATII KONATI RAO & ORS.                           A
                              v.
              PALLE VENKATA SUBBA RAO
              (Civil Appeal No. 6039 of 2003)

                    DECEMBER 7, 2010
                                                                  B
   [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
                  PRASAD, JJ.]

   LETTERS PATENT (as applicable to the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh):                                   · ' C

     Clause 10 - Letters Patent Appeal - Power of Division
Bench of High Court - HELD: Power of Division Bench,
hearing a Letters Patent appeal from judgment of a Single
Judge in a first appeal, is not limited only to a question of law D
u/s 100, but it has the same power which the Single Judge
has as a first appellate court in respect of both questions of
fact and of law.

    Adverse Possession:
                                                                  E
     Suit for recovery of possession - Defendants' pleas that
they purchased the property and, alternatively, perfected title
by adverse possession claiming to have come in possession
under agreement of sale - HELD: Both the pleas have not
been substantiated - Neither the purported sale deed nor ttie     F
agreement of sale have been placed on record.

      Adverse possession - Ingredients of - Explained -
HELD: Animus possidendi is a refluisite ingredient of adverse.·
possession - Mere possession does not ripen into
possessory title until possessor holds property adverse to the G
title of true owner for a period of 12 years - The person who
claims adverse possession is required to establish the date
on which he came in possession, nature of possession, the
                             923                                  H
    924   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1


A factum of possession, knowledge to the true owner, duration
  of possession and that the possession was open and!
  undisturbed - A person pleading adverse possession has no'
  equities in his favour and he has to plead and establish
  clearly all necessary facts to establish adverse possession -
B Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but
  a blended one of facts and law - Equities - Pleadings.
         Plaintiffs no. 1 and 2, the mother and the son, filed a
    suit against the brother and the sister of plaintiff no. 2
    (defendants no. 1 and 2, respectively) for recovery of
C   possession in respect of certain properties, including
    four acres of land pertaining to R.S. No. 44/3 (the land in
    dispute) situate in their village. Their case was that
    defendant No. 1 was looking after the land in dispute, but
    when he declined to deliver possession of the land In
D   dispute, they filed a suit for recovery of. possession and
    mesne profit. The plea of defendant no. 1 was that he
    purchased the land in dispute under a stamped
    agreement from 'VR', the father of plaintiff no. 1 and
    husband of plaintiff no. 2, for Rs.1600/-; that he paid
E   Rs.1,000/- to 'VR' and a sum of Rs.225/- to one 'BC' who
    was the tenant and in possession of the land in dispute
    and the said tenant relinquished his possession and
    delivered the land to defendant No. 1; and that he had
    perfected his title by adverse possession. Though no
F   issue of adverse possession was framed, but the trial
    court dismissed the suit, holding that title to the plaintiffs
    even if proved, got extinguished by adverse possession.
    The appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the
    Single Judge of the High Court. However, their Letters
G   Patent Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of the
    High Court and the suit was decreed.
        In the appeal filed by the heirs and legal
    representatives of defendant No.1, it was contended for
    the appellants that the concurrent findings of facts of the
H
 CHATT! KONAT! RAO & ORS. v. PALLE VENKATA              925
                SUBBA RAO
trial court and the appellate court ought not to have been     A
upset by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal; and
that the appellants· had perfected their title by adverse
possession and the findings so recorded by the trial
court and the appellate court ought not to have been
interfered in Letters Patent Appeal.                           B
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1. The Division Bench of the High Court
rightly held that the "power of the Division Bench hearing
a Letters Patent appeal under Clause 1O from the               c
judgme.nt of a Single Judge in a first appeal is not limited
only to a question of law u/s 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, but it has the same power which the Single
Judge has as a first appellate court in respect of both
questions of fact and of law. [para 10) [932-E·F]              o
    Asha Devi v. Dukhi Sao 1975 (1) SCR 611=AIR1974
SC 2048: (1974) 2 sec 492 • relied on.
    2.1. Mere possession however long does not
necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. It E
means hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly
in denial of the title of the true owner and in order to
constitute adverse possession the possession must be
adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to
show that it is adverse to the true owner. The possession F
must be open and hostile enough so that it is known by
the parties interested in the property. The plaintiff is
bound to prove his title as also possession within 12
years and once he does that, the burden shifts on the
defendant to establish that he has perfected his title by G
adverse possession, [para 14) [935-B-D]
    2.2. Claim by adverse possession has two basic
elements, i.e., the possession of the defendant should be
adverse to the plaintiff and the defendant must continue
to remain in possession for a period of 12 years               H
    926    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A thereafter. Animus possidendi, is a requisite ingredient of
  adverse possession. Mere possession does not ripen
  into pos,sessory title until possessor holds property
  adverse to the title of the true owner for the said purpose.
             1


  The person who claims advers~ possession is required
B to establish the date on which he came in possession,
  nature of possession, the factum of possession·,
  knowledge to the true owner, duration of possession and
  that the possession was open and undisturbed. [para 14)
  [935-E-F]
c      T. Anjanappa v. Soma/ingappa 2006 (5 ) Suppl.
    SCR 200 = (2006) 7 sec 570 - relied on.
       2.3. A person pleading adverse possession has no
  equities in his favour as he is trying to defeat the rights
0 of the true owner and, therefore, it is for him to plead and
  establish clearly all facts necessary to establish adverse ·
  possession. The courts always take unkind view towards
  statutes of limitation overriding property rights. Plea of
  adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a
E blended one of fact and law. [para 14] (935-G-H]
          Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India and
    Ors. 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 255   =(2004) 10 sec 779 - relied
    on.
F      2.4. In the instant case, the appellants have miserably
  failed to prove that they have perfected their title by
  adverse possession. It is significant to note that initial
  plea of the appellants was that they had purchased the
  property from the original owner, alternatively, by virtue
  of agreement of sale they came in possession of the
G property. Both these pleas have not been substantiated.
  Neither the purported sale deed nor agreement of sale
  have been placed on record. [para 15] (936-B]
     2.5. As regards the plea of adverse possession, the
H appellants' case is that out of the consideration money
 CHATTI KONATI RAO & ORS. v. PALLE VENKATA               927
                SUBBA RAO
of Rs.1,600/-, defendant no. 1 paid Rs.1,000/- to the owner A
and on payment of Rs. 225/- to the tenant in possession,
namely, 'BC', he relinquished his -possession. This
relinquishment of possession by the tenant shall not
enure to the benefit of the appellants against the true
owner so as to accept their claim for adverse possession. . B
The appellants are required to prove that their possession
was adverse to the true owner" [para 15) [936-D]

     2.6. The plea of the appellants on the basis of the
purported order dated 18.2.1954 of the Settlement Officer
directing for issuance of Patta in favour of defendant no. C
1 also does not advance their case. It is not the appellants'
case. that plaintiffs were party before the Settlement
Officer. Further, it is not in dispute that no Patta was
issued in favour of the defendant no. 1, on the other hand,
and ilJ fact, rough Patta was issued in favour of plaintiff D
no. 2. Thus, the appellants have not proved the
necessary ingredients to establish their title by adverse
possession. The Division Bench of the High Court is
absolutely right in rejecting the appellants' plea of adverse
possession and decreeing the plaintiffs' suit. [para 15] E
[936-E-F]
                     Case Law Reference:
    1975 (1) SCR 611              relied on   para 10
                                                                F
    2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 200       relied on   para 12
    2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 255 relied on         para 13
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6039 of 2003.                                                   G
    From the Judgment & Order dated 19.12.2001 of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in LPA No. 438of1988.

    Ananga Bhattacharya, Rohit R. (for V.G. Pragasam) for the
Appellants.                                                     H
    928     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         Abid Ali Beeran, Neeru Vaid for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J. 1. Plaintiff No. 1 is
    the son of plaintiff No. 2, whereas original defendant Nos. 1 and
B   2 were brother and sister of the second plaintiff. Both the
    defendants died during the pendency of the suit. The heirs and
    legal representatives of the first defendant were substituted in
    his place and they had contested the suit.

c        2. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession in
    respect of several properties mentioned in schedule of the
    plaint and in the present appeal we are concerned with
    Schedule - I property i.e. four acres of land pertaining to R.S.
    No. 44/3 situate at village Vijjeswaram, hereinafter referred to
D   as the land in dispute.

        3. According to the plaintiffs their predecessor-in-interest
  viz., one Venkata Ramana Rao, who happened to be the father
  of plaintiff No. 1 and husband of plaintiff No. 2, was the owner
  of land in dispute. Venkata Ramana Rao was a Government
E employee and in his absence defendant No. 1 i.e. elder brother
  of second plaintiff used to look after his property. Said Venkata
  Ramana Rao died in the year 1948 and thereafter the plaintiffs
  came back to the village and started looking after the
  agricultural land including the land in dispute. Plaintiffs case
F further is that again in the year 1954 they shifted their residence
  to Kakinada for education of the first plaintiff and defendant No.
  1 was asked to look after the land in dispute. In the year 1974
  when the defendant declined to deliver possession of the land
  in dispute, lawyer's notice dated 6th April, 1974 was issued
G calling upon the defendants to hand over the property.
  Defendant No. 1 responded to the notice by his letter dated 27th
  May, 1974 denying the title of the plaintiffs and claiming himself
  to be the owner of the property. Plaintiffs thereafter filed the suit
  bearing O.S. No. 20 of 1974 in the Court of the Subordinate
H Judge, West Godavari District, Kovvur for recovery of
 CHATTI KONATI RAO & ORS. v. PALLE VENKATA                929
 SUBBA RAO [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
possession in respect of land in dispute and for mesne profit.   A

     4. In the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 his plea
was that he purchased the land in dispute under a stamped
agreement from Venkata Ramana Rao for a value of Rs.1600/
-. According to him he paid Rs.1,000/- to Venkata Ramana B
Rao and a sum of Rs.225/- to one Bombothu Chitteyya who
was the tenant and in possession of the land in dispute during
1943 and said tenant vide letter dated 16th June, 1943
relinquished his possession and delivered the land to defendant
No. 1. It is further case of defendant No. 1 that balance amount
of Rs.400/- was sent by Money Order. After the death of C
Venkata Ramana Rao, the second plaintiff u!aimed more money
towards the sale of the land in dispute and plaintiff No. 2 being
the sister of defendant No. 1, a further sum of Rs.500/- was paid
to her vide receipt dated 14th January, 1952 (Exh.B-4).
                                                                 D
      5. Plea of defendant No. 1 further is that on 6th November,
1960 he filed an application before the Assistant Settlement
Officer for correction of rough patta issued in favour of second
plaintiff in 1959 and to substitute his name along with his
brother's name in place of second plaintiff. In the application E
defendant No. 1 categorically stated that on 18th February,
1954 the Settlement Officer directed issuance of patta of the
land in dispute along with other lands in their favour and he was
all through waiting for the issuance of patta. However, according
to defendant No. 1, in August, 1959 he came to know that a F
rough patta was issued to second plaintiff contrary to the
decision of the Settlement Officer and thereafter he filed an
application on 7th November, 1959 before the Rough Patta
Correction Officer informing him about variance between grant
and the order and prayed that the name of the second plaintiff G
be deleted from the patta and in her place his name and that
of his brother's name be substituted. According to defendant
No. 1 he filed reminder on 6th November, 1960 but it was
returned by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 22nd November,
1960 with certain objections. Thereafter the first defendant did
                                                                  H
        930    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A       not present the petition for substituting his name in the patta
        by deleting the name of the second plaintiff. Further plea of the
        first defendant was that he had perfected his title by adverse
        possession.

            6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial
8
        court framed various issues; including the following issues :

              "1. Whether the father of the 1st plaintiff late Venkata
              Ramana Rao died possessed of the plaint schedule
              properties?
c
              2.Whether any of the suit properties were entrusted to any
              of the defendants in or about the year 1952?

              3.Whether sale of item I of the·,schedule property to 1st
              defendant in 1943 is true?"
D
              7. It is relevant here to state that no issue of adverse
        possession was framed but on ttie basis of the materials on
        record the trial court came to the conclusion that title to the
        plaintiffs even .i.f 1 proved, gets extinguished by adverse
E       possessio~At tLrther held that de~endant No. 1 is in possession
        of the suit property and when coll)sidered along with other
        1

    •   documents, the same proves his title. The trial court also
        observed that the plaintiff having not adduced any oral evidence
        or filed any document to show that the property was entrusted ~
F       to defendant No. 1 for management, it is evident that defendant
        No. 1 has title over the land in dispute. The trial court further
        held that defendant No. 1 had purchased the land in dispute
        and on these findings the trial court-dismissed the suit.

       · 8. Plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the
G trial court, preferred appeal before the High Court and the
  learned Single Judge by his judgment and decree dated
  16.09.1987 dismissed the appeal. Plaintiffs thereafter preferred.
  Letters Patent Appeal No. 438 of 1988 and the Division Bench
  of the High Court by its judgment and decree dated 19.12.2001
H
                                         '   I   ... f~_,.,_
  CHATII KONATI RAO & ORS. v. PALLE VENKATA                   931
  SUBBA RAO [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]

 allowed the appeal; set aside the judgment and decree of the         A
trial court as well as of the appellate court and decreed the suit.
.While doing so the High Court observed as follows :

     "From the documentary evidence available on record, it
     cannot be said that the first defendant has perfected his
                                                                     8
   · title to the property by adverse possession. On the other
     hand, he tried to change his version from time to time to
     suit his convenience i.e., firstly, in the written statement he
     contended that he had purchased the property from late
     Venkata Ramana Rao and produced two letters said to
     have been written by Venkata Ramana Rao, whose writing
                                                                     C;
     is not at all tallying, and we have no manner of doubt that
     these letters were brought into existence by the first
     defendant in support of his case. Secondly, the first
     defendant filed an application in year 1964 before the
     Settlement Officer contending that himself and his brothers D
     are Agraharamdars and are entitled to patta under section
     15 of the Estates Abolition Act, but he never disclosed that
     he had purchased the land from his brother-in-law. Though
     he obtained an order from Assistant Settlement Officer in
     the year 1964, no patta was issued to DI till the trial of the E
     suit on the other hand even as per his version rough patta
     was issued in the name of 2nd plaintiff, but he has not
     taken any steps to get it qancelled. Now, he started
     contending that he perfected title by adverse possession.
     As he himself admitted that initially his possession is F
     permissive one as .he was not paying any rents and
     enjoying the property to himself to exclusion of the land
     owners, he cannot contend that he perfected title by
     adverse possession; more so in the light of Exs. B-5 and
     B-9 wherein both the parties are fighting for patta after G
     abolition of the estate. In order to establish that the first
     defendant had perfected his title to the property by adverse
     possession, it requires more cogent proof, which is not
     forthcoming in this case. On the other hand, if we analyse
     the documentary evidence available on record, the only H
    932     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         conclusion we can arrive at is that taking advantage of the
          near relationship between him and the plaintiffs and their
          absence from the village, the first defendant tried to create
          documents to knock away the property. We have not
          discussed the oral evidence for the simple reason that the
B         documentary evidence itself speaks of the falsehood of the
          claim of defendants."

         9. Heirs and legal representatives of defendant No. 1,
    aggrieved by the same, have preferred this appeal with leave
    of the Court.
c
          10. Mr. Ananga Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing
    on behalf of the appellants submits that the concurrent findings
    of facts of the trial court and the appellate court ought not to '
    have been upset by the Division Bench in Letters Patent
D   appeal. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr.
    Bhattacharya. In fact, while setting aside the judgment and
    decree of the trial court and the appellate court the Division
    Bench referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Asha
    Devi v. Dukhi Sao [AIR 1974 SC 2048: (1974) 2 SCC 492],
E   and came to the conclusion that the "power of the Division
    Bench hearing a Letters Patent appeal under Clause (10) from
    the judgment of a single Judge in first appeal is not limited only
    to a question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
    Procedure, but it has the same power which the Single Judge
F   has as a first Appellate Court in respect of both questions of
    fact and of law." We are of the opinion that the High Court was
    absolutely right in making the aforesaid observation and
    accordingly we reject this submission of Mr. Bhattacharya.

         11. Mr. Bhattacharya, then submits that the appellants had
G   perfected their title by adverse possession and the findings so
    recorded by the trial court and the appellate court ought not to
    have been interfered in appeal. Mr. Abid Ali Beeran, learned
    counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however,
    submits that the finding recorded by the trial court and the
H   appellate court being absolutely illegal, nothing prevented the
 CHATII KONATI RAO & ORS. v. PALLE VENKATA                   933
 SUBBA RAO [CHANDRAMAUU KR. PRASAD, J.]
Division Bench of the High Court to set aside that finding.          A

     12. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the
submission advanced and we do not find any substance in the
submission of Mr. Bhattacharya. What is adverse possession,
on whom the burden of proof lie, the approach of the court           B
towards such plea etc. have been the subject matter of
decision in a large number of cases. In the case of T.
Anjanappa v. Somalingappa (2006) 7 SCC 570, it has been
held that mere possession however long does not necessarily
mean that it is adverse to the true owner and the classical
requirement of acquisition of title by adverse possession is that    C
such possessions are in denial of the true owner's title. Relevant
passage of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows :

     "20. It is well-recognised propo~ition in law that mere
     possession however long does not necessarily mean that          D
     it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really
     means the hostile possession which is expressly or
     impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in ordeho
     constitute adverse possession the possession proved                 (
     must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent      E
     so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The
     classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse
     possession are that such possession in denial of the true
     owner's title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The
     possession must be open and hostile enough to be                F
     capable of being known by the parties interested in the
     property, though it is not necessary that there should be
     evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the
     real owner of the former's hostile action."

    13. What facts are required to prove adverse possession          G
have succinctly been enunciated by this Court in the case of
Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India and Ors.
(2004) 10 SCC 779. It has also been observed that a person
pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour and
                                                                     H
    .934----SUPRE-ME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A since such a person is trying to defeat the rights of the true
  owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish necessary
  facts to establish his adverse possession. Paragraph 11 of the
  judgment which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows :

        "11. In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to
B
        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
c       is a hostile possession by·c1early 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 "nee vi, nee clam, nee
        precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The
D       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.
E       Bibi Sakina AIR 1964 SC 1254, Parsinni v. Sukhi (1993)
        4 SCC 375 and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of
        Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567) Physical fact of exclusive
        possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner
        in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important
F       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
G       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
H       rights of the true owner, i.t is for him to clearly plead and
   CHATII KONAT! RAO & ORS. v. PALLE VENKATA 935
   SUBBA RAO [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
      establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse A
      possession. [Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr.) v. Raj Kumari
      Sharma (1996) 8 SCC 128]"
         14. In view of the several authorities of 'this Court, few
   whereof have been referred above, what can safely be said
                                                                        8
, that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean
   that it is adverse to the true owner. It means hostile possession
   which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true
   owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the
   possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity' and in      C
   extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The
   possession must be open and hostile enough so that it is known
   by the parties interested in the property. The plaintiff is bound
   to prove his title as also possession within 12 years and once
   the plaintiff proves his title, the burden shifts on the defendant
   to establish that he has perfected -his title by adverse             D
   possession. Claim by adverse possession has two basic
   elements i.e. the possession of the defendant should be
   adverse to the plaintiff and the defendant must continue to
   remain in possession for a period of 12 years thereafter.
 , Animus possidendi as is well known a requisite ingredi~nt of         E
   adverse possession. Mere possession does not ripen into
   possessory title until possessor holds property adverse to the
   title of the true owne1 for the said purpose. The person who
   claims adverse possession is required to establish the date on
_ which he came in possession, nature of possession, the factum         F
   of possession, knowledge to the true owner, duration of
   possession and possession was open and undisturbed. A
   person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his
   favour as he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner and,
   hence, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts        G
   necessary to establi~h adverse possession. The courts always
   take unkind view towards statutes of limitation overriding
   property rights. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure
   question of law but a blended one of fact and law.
                                                                        H
    936    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A        15. Bearing in mind the principles aforesaid when we
    proceed to consider the facts of this case, we find that
    appellants have miserably failed to prove that they have
    perfected their title by adverse possession. It is worth
    mentioning here that initial plea of the appellant was that they
B   had purchased the property from the original owner, alternatively
    by virtue of agreement to sale they came in possession of the
    property. Both these pleas have not been substantiated. Neither
    the purported sale deed nor agreement to sale have been
    placed on record. As regards the plea of adverse possession,
c   appellants' case is that out of the consideration money of
    Rs.1,600/-, Rs.1,000/- was paid to the real owner and on
    payment of Rs. 225/- to the tenant in possession namely
    Bombothu Chitteyya, he relinquished his possession. This
    relinquishment of possession by the tenant shall not enure to
    the benefit of the appellants against the true owner so as to
0
    accept their claim for adverse possession. Appellants are
    required to prove that their possession was adverse to the true
    owner. The plea of the appellants on the basis of the purported
    order dated 18th February, 1954 of the Settlement Officer
    directing for issuance of Patta in their favour also does not
E   advance their case. It is not the appellant's case that plaintiffs
    were party before the Settlement Officer. Further, it is not in
    dispute that no Patta was issued in favour of the appellants and
    in fact rough P~tta was issued in favour of the second plaintiff.
    Thus, the appellants have not proved the necessary ingredients
F   to establish their title by adverse possession. In our opinion,
    the Division Bench is absolutely right in rejecting the appellants'
    plea of adverse possession and decreeing the plaintiffs suit,
    after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial and the
    appellate Court.
G
           16. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and
    it is dismissed with cost thrpughout to be paid by the appellants
    to the respondent. Lawyers fee quantified at Rs.25,000/-.

    RP.                                           Appeal dismissed.
H