2025:JHHC:11646 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 551 of 2017 Bharat Gaur, S/o Late Benu Gour, R/o village-Pokhari, P.O.- Bhilaipahari, P.S.-M.G.M., District-East Singhbhum at present Mango Gour Basti, P.O. & P.S.-Mango, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. … … Plaintiff/Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand represented by Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. … … Defendant/Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate : Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G.-IA --- 08/13.02.2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of affirmation. The plaintiff had filed the suit bearing Title Suit No. 57 of 2007 seeking declaration of title by adverse possession, confirmation of possession and seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The suit was dismissed and the first appeal was also dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff had filed a suit seeking declaration of adverse possession with respect to the property involved in this case against the Government. He has submitted that as per the case of the plaintiff there was an oral settlement by the ex-landlord. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit land was orally settled by the ex-landlord in favour of plaintiff/ his ancestors who retained the property and started cultivation and thereafter since 1946 they have been in continuous possession of the suit land and the plaintiff/his ancestors had perfected their title by way of adverse possession. 2025:JHHC:11646 2 4. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned 1st appellate court while considering the matter has failed to consider that PW-4 & PW-5 had supported the case of the plaintiff and therefore, their evidences were not properly considered by both the courts. The learned counsel has also submitted that it is a well-settled law that adverse possession can be claimed by filing a suit and need not be just a matter of the defence. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, this court finds that the learned trial court considered the materials on record and found that the basic ingredients of adverse possession were not satisfied by the plaintiff. The learned trial court after considering the merits of the case also observed that the plea of adverse possession cannot be used as a sword but can always be used as a shield. However, the learned trial court, while considering the materials on the point of the satisfaction of basic ingredients of adverse possession, has scrutinized the evidence produced by the plaintiff including that of PW-4 & PW-5 and recorded that the discussion of the evidences could not establish the claim of adverse possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff during his cross-examination could not even disclose the name of the landlord and in further cross-examination he stated that he could prove khuntkati right of his ancestors but no such evidence was produced. Exhibit-4 i.e. the khatiyan revealed that the property was shown to be recorded in the name of Government and this happened in the survey operation with respective land. 6. The learned 1st Appellate Court also considered the materials on record including the evidence PW-4 & PW-5. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded that Exhibit-4 khatiyan of khata no. 202 shows that the plot no. 524 of this khatiyan is purana parti land recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar along with plot nos. 183 & 673. 7. The learned 1st Appellate Court recorded discussions of P.W-4 and 5 and, interalia, recorded its findings. Paragraph 16,17, 18 and 19 are quoted as under as under: - 2025:JHHC:11646 3 “16. P. W. 4 Bharat Dubey, a witness aged about 86 years and retired from government service, in his examination in chief on affidavit has stated that he has seen plaintiff Bharat Gaur and his father Benu Gaur cultivating the suit land. A BPLE proceeding was started against plaintiff in which possession of plaintiff over disputed land was found and that proceeding was dropped by the government. Plaintiff is in possession of this land through his father since fifty years. In para 10 of his cross-examination has stated that the suit land is khata no. 202 and plot no. 524 which is recorded in the name of State of Bihar. This witness is retired employee of revenue department who was posted as Circle Inspector in Jamshedpur in the years between 1975-1981. In para 13, this witness clarified that to settle revenue, report was submitted by him to Circle Officer but he has no knowledge whether it was settled in favour of the plaintiff or not. According to para 14 of his cross-examination, even he has no knowledge that whether his report was considered as right report or not? 17. P. W. 5 is Halka Karmchari posted in the office of Circle Officer. In his examination in chief on affidavit he has stated that earlier a BPLE case was instituted against plaintiff. In that case it was found that plaintiff was in possession of suit land since 40-50 years and that case was dropped. He has submitted report to C.O. on the notice of section 80 C.P.C. Report of CO. dated 12.03.2017 has been marked Ext. X-for identification. This witness explained in para 9 and 13 of his cross-examination has said that on the basis of notice u/s 80 C.P.C. he received order of inquiry and he completed it but no such inquiry report has been submitted from the side of the plaintiff. It is also explained by this witness that under the direction of Circle Officer, he inquired but he has no letter in this regard, such letter has not been produced by the plaintiff. 18. Document Ext. 3 which is final order of C.O. alongwith report of Halka Karmchari shows that plaintiff has reclaimed the suit land cultivable and has been doing paddy cultivation and Rabi cultivation over that land since more than thirty years. Document Ext. 4 Khatiyan of khata no. 202 shows that plot no. 524 of this khata is purana parti land recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar alongwith plots no. 183 and 673. 19. On perusal of entire materials available on record I find that the suit land is recorded in the name of government. Plaintiff claims over this land on the basis of adverse possession. Document Ext. 3 and oral evidences show that plaintiff has been in possession over this land. But no time no date and no manner of his coming into possession over this land has been proved by any document. The main part of the pleading that the ancestors of the plaintiff, being Khuntikatti settled raiyat of village Mango, 2025:JHHC:11646 4 reclaimed the suit land by cleaning the Jharis/buhes and made the same land cultivable within the knowledge of ex-landlord of the village in the year 1946 after the oral settlement from him prior to 1946 has not been proved by any suitable evidence As per Law of Pleadings by Mogha the adverse possession is one of the defence. The period of limitation is 12 years against private land and 30 years against Government land and starts from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. For adverse possession it is necessary for the person to admit the title of the real owner and to establish his open and hostile possession without any interruption. It is not sufficient to plead that a party has been in adverse possession for 12 years, it should be definitely alleged how and when adverse possession commenced. Such as the defendant has dispossessed the plaintiff and has been in possession continuously ever since, or the defendant has been open and continuously in possession for more than 12 years to the knowledge of the plaintiff, or the defendant has been in possession continuously for more than 12 years so openly that either the plaintiff was aware of his possession or ought to have been aware had he exercise due diligence. The law of adverse possession is contained in the Indian Limitation Act. Article 65, Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act prescribes a limitation of 12 years for a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title. Article 64 governs suits for possession based on possessory right. It is important to note that in respect of land belonging to the State such limitation vide Article 112 Schedule "A" of the Limitation Act is 30 years and the starting point of limitation is the same in the case of the suit by a private person which is to be counted from the point of time "when the possession becomes adverse to the real owner". The starting point of limitation Under Article 64 of Article 65 r/w Article 112 shall also be read with section 27 of the Limitation Act which bears heading --"Extinguishment of right to property". It lays down: At the determination of the period hereby limited to any person for instituting the suit within the period of limitation comes to an end, but the right based on title or possession, as the case may be, will be extinguished. Thus, the section 27 of the Limitation Act assists the person in possession to acquire prescriptive title by adverse possession. The said section is also an exception to the well accepted rule that limitation bars only the remedy and does not extinguish the title. It lays down a rule of substantive law by declaring that after the lapse of the period, the title ceases to exist and not merely the remedy. It further means that since the person who had a right to possession has allowed his right to be extinguished by his inaction, he cannot 2025:JHHC:11646 5 recover the property from the person in adverse possession as a necessary corollary thereto, the person in adverse possession is enabled to hold on to his possession as against the owner not in possession. Instant case has been filed for declaration of plaintiff’s right and title on the basis of adverse possession and the plaintiff is duty bound to prove the clear date and manner of his coming into possession over this land. Document Ext. 3 talks in general term that plaintiff has been seen in possession of this land without any specific date and manner how he came into possession of this land.” 8. This Court finds that both the courts have scrutinized the materials on record and have recorded that the appellant failed to prove his case for adverse possession. The learned 1st Appellate Court has also recorded that the instant case has been filed for declaration of plaintiff’s right and title on the basis of adverse possession and the plaintiff is duty bound to prove the clear date and manner of his coming into possession over this land and the exhibit 3 which was relied upon by the plaintiff did not show the necessary details and Ext. 3 talked in general term that plaintiff has been seen in possession of the land without any specific date and manner how he came into possession of this land. The documentary and also oral evidences have been duly considered and after scrutiny the judgements have been passed. 9. In the recent judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vasantha v. Rajalakshmi, (2024) 5 SCC 282, the earlier judgement with regards to basic ingredients of claim of adverse possession has been considered and it has been held as under:- “40. In Saroop Singh v. Banto (two-Judge Bench), this Court observed that Article 65 states that the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendant’s possession becomes adverse. Further relying on Karnataka Wakf Board v. Union of India (two-Judge Bench), it observed that the physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases related to adverse possession. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blend 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 possession; (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party; 2025:JHHC:11646 6 (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 rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to prove his adverse possession.” 10. This Court finds that both the courts have recorded concurrent finding after scrutinizing the materials on record including evidence of P.W-4 and 5 and the judgement is in consonance with law. No perversity as such has been found in the matter of appreciation of evidences placed on record. This court is of the considered view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. 12. Pending I.A., if any, is dismissed as not pressed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Arpit/-