have heard the learned counsel appearing for ppellants/plaintiffs and perused the judgment decree of both the Courts below. Apart from this, the plaintiffs neither filed any title document showing their possession over the suit land for last thirty years, as held in V. Case bf it IhHRmEJAH AND ANOTHER Va SECREEMEKfHD GOVERNMENT (m? IUHadHHHQL REVENUE .DERERHWEWF IHH) OTHERSI, in which, the Supreme Court has states thus: “21.A court should necessarily seek an answer to the following question, before it grants .a decree declaring title against the government whether the plaintiff haS‘prOduced title deeds tracing the title for a period of more than thirty years; or whether the plaintiff has established his adverse possession to the knowledge of the government for a period of more than thirty years, so as to convert his possession into title. incidental to that question, the co’urt should also find out whether the plaintiff is recorded to be the owner or holder or occupant of the property in the revenue records or municipal records, for more than thirty years, and what is the natureoof possession claimed by the plaintiff, if he is in possession — authorized or unauthorized; x 1 permissive; casual and occasional; 1 (2010)§5 scc 203
