Mere Possession Over Government Land Without Proving Hostile Animous Does Not Establish Adverse Possession

The Appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration of right, title, and interest over a suit schedule property, claiming to have perfected her title through adverse possession against the State of Tripura (Respondents 1-3).

She additionally sought a perpetual injunction to prevent the demolition of structures on the land

The Trial Court (Civil Judge, Sr. Div. Dharmanagar) dismissed the suit on December 10, 2024, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the specific date and nature of possession

This was subsequently upheld by the First Appellate Court (Addl. District Judge, North Tripura) on September 3, 2025

1. Whether the Appellant established a valid claim of title by adverse possession against the State government land

2. Whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration to warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts

The Court applied the established legal principles governing adverse possession, which require a claimant to prove animus possidendi—specifically, the date of commencement of possession, the nature and factum of possession, and that such possession was open, undisturbed, and known to the true owner

The Court also took cognizance of the evidentiary value of Revenue Records (Khatian) and the principle that mere long-term illegal occupation of State land does not automatically translate into a legal right of adverse possession

The Court evaluated the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting significant contradictions in the evidence provided by the plaintiff’s witnesses regarding the commencement of possession, with dates varying between 1963, 1974, and 1983

It observed that a previous possession certificate (Exhibit-1) had been revoked by the authorities (Exhibit-X)

Furthermore, the official revenue record (Khatian 3/1) did not list the plaintiff as being in possession; instead, it indicated that a proforma defendant was in unauthorized occupation

The Court reasoned that since the findings of fact were based on a correct appreciation of record and were not "perverse," there was no basis for a second appeal

The Court affirmed that the plaintiff failed to meet the rigorous burden of proof required to establish adverse possession against the State. Consequently, the Second Appeal (RSA) was dismissed at the admission stage, and the judgments of the lower courts were upheld