1 2025:CGHC:22843 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 274 of 2022 1 - Gyan Singh Bahadur S/o Ramsingh Bahadur Aged About 55 Years R/o Rammanohar Lohiya Nagar, Mova, P.H. No. 109, Revenue Circle Raipur -1, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Hari Vallabh Agrawal W/o Shri Ramdayal Agrawal, Aged About 50 Years R/o Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate For State-Respondent No.2 : Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment On Board 10/06/2025 1 Heard. 2 This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2022 passed by the Sixth Additional District Judge, RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.06.12 16:35:43 +0530 2 Raipur, District Raipur (CG) in Civil Appeal No.18A/2020 upholding the judgment and decree dated 14.01.2020 passed by the 4th Civil Judge, Class- II, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) in Civil Suit (CIS) No.137A/2015, whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the civil suit filed by appellant/plaintiff for declaration of his title and grant of permanent injunction in respect of the suit land. (The parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status in the suit before the trial Court.) 3 Facts of the case, in brief, as projected by plaintiff is that he has filed civil suit for declaration of his title on the basis of adverse possession and grant of permanent injunction in respect of the suit land bearing Plot Nos.123/15 and 123/12 (henceforth referred to as ‘suit land’) situated at village Pandri, Mova near Lohiya Nagar, beside Diamond tree, Raipur (CG) pleading inter alia that he is in possession over the suit land since 35 years and the suit land is Nazul /Government land, as such, he has perfected to his title over the suit land on the principle of adverse possessory right. It has further been pleaded that defendant No.1 wanted to dispossess him from the suit land forcefully whereas plaintiff is residing there since 35 years, therefore, he filed civil suit seeking aforesaid relief. 4 Defendant No.1 filed written statement denying pleading of plaintiff stating inter alia that plot Nos. of suit land is not 123/15 and 123/12, rather, it is Khasra Nos.123/16 and 123/120, area 18,000 sq. ft., which was purchased by father of the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 23.03.2001 from its original owner Heeranand Raheja S/o Bhagwandas Raheja, thereafter, the said purchased land has been numbered as Khasra No.123/26, area 0.203 hectare and Khasra No.123/27, area 0.020 hectare, 3 which has been recorded in the name of R.D. Agrawal (father of the plaintiff). It has further been pleaded by defendant No.1 that after purchasing of suit land, boundary wall has been constructed and one servant house was also constructed in which, plaintiff was residing since 5 years in monthly wages. Defendant has denied that plaintiff is in possession over the suit land since 12 years or more he has perfected his title on the basis of adverse possession. 5 Based on pleading of plaintiff and defendant No.1, learned trial Court framed as many as five issues and after recording evidence adduced by both the parties, dismissed civil suit filed by plaintiff holding therein that plaintiff has utterly failed to prove that the suit land is a Nazul /Government land, rather, he himself has admitted that the suit land is a land of defendant No.1 and he has also failed to prove that he has perfected his title over the suit land on the basis of adverse possession, hence, this appeal. 6 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that appellant/plaintiff has proved his title on the basis of adverse possession by his oral evidence and evidence of his three other witnesses, which has not been rebutted by defendant No.1 in cross-examination. He would further submit that plaintiff is residing over the suit land since 35 years. His children were also born over that land and he also performed their marriage from that land, he has constructed house there and residing there since 35 years, but without considering aforesaid facts, learned trial Court has dismissed the civil suit filed by plaintiff, therefore, this appeal may be admitted for hearing on proposed substantial question of law. 7 On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that plaintiff has failed to adduce any lawful evidence to substantiate his claim, therefore, both the Courts below have not committed any error in dismissing 4 the claim of plaintiff, hence this appeal is liable to be dismissed at motion stage. 8 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9 The plaintiff has filed civil suit on the ground that he has perfected his title over the suit land on the basis of adverse possession as he is in possession over it since 35 years by constructing house and the suit land has been encircled by him by constructing boundary wall also. It is claim of the plaintiff that the suit land is a Nazul / Government land, as such, he has sought for permission of the Court under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing civil suit. On the other hand, he himself has admitted in pleading as well as in cross-examination also that defendant No.1 is an owner of the suit land. 10 The plaintiff himself has pleaded contradictory fact that the suit land is a Government land or private land of defendant No.1. He has not filed any document except verbal statement of his own and his other relatives to prove the fact that the suit land is a Nazul / Government land or private land of defendant No.1. To prove the fact of adverse possessory title over the suit land, claimant ought to have proved that he was in continuous possession since 12/30 years over the private / government land peacefully, without interruption, dehoring the title of its original owner, within his knowledge, but these facts have not been proved at all by the plaintiff, rather, he himself is confused that the suit land is a government land or private land. In absence of cogent evidence and only on the basis of verbal statement of plaintiff and his relatives, claim of the plaintiff cannot be substantiated. 5 11 In view of above discussion and having perused the evidence available on record, which has been discussed in detail by the Courts below, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal, as such, no question of law is found to be framed in this appeal, hence, the second appeal is dismissed at motion stage. 12 Records of both the Courts below be returned along with a copy of this judgment. 13 The decree be drawn accordingly. 14 The parties to bear their own cost. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar