1 2025:CGHC:59334 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 149 of 2012 1 – Mahesh Kumar, aged about 05 years, S/o G. N. Kanhaiya (wrongly mention as G.S. Kanhaiya) 2- Suresh Kumar aged about 60 years, S/o G. N. Kanhaiya (wrongly mention as G.S. Kanhaiya) Both R/o Rajapara, Thana and Dist- Kanker. ... appellant (s) versus 1 – Ishwarsingh, S/o Bishnath (died) through his Legal Heirs a. Smt. Raminbai, aged about 52 years, W/o Ishwar Singh. b. Mohan aged about 20 years, S/o Ishwar Singh d. Ku. Anita aged about 25 years, D/o Late Ishwar Singh e. Ku. Sunita aged about 23 years, D/o Late Ishwar Singh f. Ku. Nitu aged about 20 years, D/o Late Ishwar Singh 2. Phoolbati, aged about 50 years, W/o Bishnath Singh Thakur 3. Shravan aged about 25 years, S/o Bishnath Singh Thakur 4 Ashok aged about 22 years, S/o Bishnath Singh Thakur 5. Rajendra aged about 20 years, S/o Bishnath Singh Thakur 6. Vijay aged about 19 years, S/o Bishnath Singh Thakur 7. Mina aged about 18 years, D/o Bishnath Singh Thakur ... Respondent(s) For appellant (s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No. 1a to 1f : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.01.30 18:47:01 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. The present second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the plaintiffs against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25/08/2011 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, South Bastar, Kanker, in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/2006 whereby the first appeal filed by the plaintiffs have been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Kanker, Dist- North Bastar Kanker in Civil Suit No. 56- A/2005 has been affirmed. 2. The second appeal has been admitted on 25.06.2021 on the following substantial question of law:- (i) Whether both the courts below are justified in holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the suit land ignoring the registered sale deed dated 03.01.1984 (Ex-P/1) by recording a finding perverse to the record? (ii) Whether both the courts below are justified in holding that the plaintiff has not paid the adequate court fee as per law by recording a finding perverse to the record? 3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for possession of the suit property situated at Rajapara, Kanker, Sheet No- 13-B, Plot No. 29, Area- 746 sq. meter (8029 sq. ft.) which has been shown in plaint map of schedule annexed with the plaint. The plaintiffs have pleaded in the plaint that they are the title holder of the suit property which they have purchased on 03.01.1984 from Tijiya Bai, W/o Nathu Ram for the total consideration of Rs. 2000/-. At the time of its purchase, Tijiya Bai has also informed them that in A,B,C,D part of the suit property shown in the schedule of the plaint, the original defendant Ishwar Singh was 3 residing as licencee and he will vacate the suit property very soon. The original defendant Ishwar Singh is in possession of 96 sq. meter (1033 sq. fit) which is the part of the total land of 8029 sq. ft. When the original defendant has not vacated the suit property, they served a legal notice to him on 04.03.1986 but the defendant neither replied the notice nor vacated the suit property and thereafter, the present suit filed on 14.07.1986. During pendency of the suit, the original defendant Ishwar Singh has died and his LR’s have been substituted in the suit vide order dated 02.07.2005. During pendency of the suit, the defendants No. 2 to 9 have also been impleaded vide order dated 22.02.1989. 4. The original defendant Ishwar Singh contested the claim of the plaintiffs and filed his written statement. He denied the plaint averment and pleaded in written statement that the father of the defendant namely Bishnath Singh Thakur had purchased the suit property on 03.02.1949 from its owner Nathu Ram and came into possession of the same. After death of his father, the defendants are in possession of the same with their own title. Tijiya Bai was the wife of Nathu Ram who have no right or the title to sale the suit property to the plaintiffs and the sale deed executed by Tijiya Bai in favour of the plaintiffs is not binding upon them and no title was passed in favour of the plaintiffs by the said sale deed. They have never given any assurance either Tijiya Bai or the plaintiffs that they will vacate the suit property. The defendants are in possession over the suit property from 03.02.1949 by their own title and therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation and is not maintainable. 5. The defendants No. 2, 3 and 7 have also filed their written statement 4 separately and pleaded that their father Bishnath has purchased the suit property from Nathu Ram on 03.02.1949 and since then, they are in possession of the same. Tijiya Bai was not having any right or the title to sold the suit property again to the plaintiffs and such sale deed is not binding upon them. The plaintiffs or Tijiya Bai are never been in possession of the suit property and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and is not maintainable. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court has framed issues and proceeded for recording evidence of the parties. The plaintiffs in support of their case, have examined Suresh Kumar as (PW/1), Hemant Singh Rajput as (PW/2), Chhannu Lal Soni as (PW/3) and relied upon the documents Nazul Assessment Khasra Form (Ex- P/1), Sale-deed dated 03.01.1984 executed by Tijiya Bai in favour of the plaintiffs (Ex-P/2), affidavit of Tijiya Bai (Ex-P/3). The defendants have examined (DW/1) Ramin Bai, (DW/2) Phoolbati, (DW/3) Jagdish, (DW/4) Mangal Prasad Dehari and relied upon the documents of the copy of Bank Challan (Ex-D/1) and tax receipt of Municipal Council, Kanker (Ex-D/2). 7. After considering the evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are the title holder of the suit property and are not entitled for decree of possession. It has also been held that the suit of the plaintiff is not property valued. The judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was challenged by the plaintiffs before the first appellate Court which has also been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.08.2011, by affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which is under challenge in the present second appeal 5 and the second appeal has been admitted on the substantial question of law as set out in the earlier part of the judgment. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit property through the registered sale deed dated 03.01.1984 (Ex-P/2) from its owner Tijiya Bai and title has been transferred to the plaintiffs. The claim of the defendants that their father had purchased the suit property from Nathu Ram but they have not produced any deed of title by which they purchased the suit property from Nathu Ram. From the document (Ex-P/1), it has duly been proved that the property belongs to Nathu Ram and thereafter, Tijiya Bai was the owner of the property, who, on her rightful ownership, sold the suit property to the plaintiffs and conveyed the title upon them. The learned trial Court has erroneously held that the document (Ex-P/1) is not the deed of title in the subject property which is situated over the nazul land, which is the property belongs to State government and since, the possession of the plaintiffs or Tijiya Bai was not there in the suit property, and from the document of payment of land revenue by the defendant Ishwar Singh, his possession has been found, the transaction of sale is not completed in absence of delivery of possession of the suit property and thus, the title of the suit property was not transferred to the plaintiffs and they are not the owner of the same. The delivery of possession is not required when the property was transferred through registered sale deed and the purchaser can claim possession of the property which they have purchased. At the time of its sale transaction, Tijiya Bai was in constructive possession of the suit property and she transferred the same to the plaintiffs, therefore, the judgment passed by learned Courts below are perverse 6 in the facts and circumstances of the case. He would also submit that the learned first appellate Court has erroneously considered that the defendants are residing in the suit property prior to 1973 i.e. the year of death of Nathu Ram and neither Nathu Ram nor Tijiya Bai has raised any objection in their possession, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below are perverse and liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1-a to 1-f opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiffs and submitted that the plaintiffs’ title has been denied by the defendants yet they have not filed the suit for declaration of their title. The title of the plaintiffs were under cloud by the denial and claiming title on themselves by the defendants, therefore, the suit only for possession was not maintainable and the plaintiffs was required to file the suit for declaration of title also. Tijiya Bai was not having any right or title over the suit property to alienate the same in favour of the plaintiffs and by such sale deed dated 03.01.1984, executed by Tijiya Bai, the plaintiffs does not have any title over the suit property. The possession of the suit property was not delivered to the plaintiffs which was essential condition of completion of sale, therefore, the learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs which does not suffers from any infirmity or perversity. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court as well as first appellate Court. Consideration with respect to substantial question of law No. 1:- 11. The plaintiffs claimed for possession of the suit property is based on their title which they acquired from the sale deed dated 03.01.1984 7 (Ex-P/1) executed by Tijiya Bai. The defendants claimed their possession that their father had purchased the suit property from Nathu Ram in the year 1949 and since then they are in possession of the same, but the defendants have not produced any document by which their father had purchased the suit property from Nathu Ram in the year 1949. The plaintiffs have pleaded in Para 3 of their plaint that they purchased the suit property from Tijiya Bai on 03.01.1984 for total consideration of Rs. 2000/-. From perusal of sale deed dated 03.01.1984 (Ex-P/2), it transpires that she received the entire sale consideration of Rs. 2000/- and possession of the suit property was also delivered to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have deposed in support of their claim that they purchased the suit property on 03.01.1984 after payment of sale consideration of Rs. 2000/- and obtained possession of the suit property. At the time of its purchase, the defendant Ishwar was residing over 90 sq. meter of the property and Tijiya Bai was granted licence in favour of Ishwar for his residence. Ishwar had assured them that he will vacate the suit property very soon and they attorned their licence to Ishwar. He purchased total 742 sq. meter of the suit property. The sale deed produced by the plaintiffs with respect to entire property of 742 sq. meter including the property, which is in possession of the defendants, have not been challenged by the defendants by filing any cross-suit or counter-claim, particularly, when the plaintiffs are claiming possession over the property in which the defendants are in possession. Since, the defendants have pleaded that their father had purchased the suit property in the year 1949 from Nathu Ram, they must have challenged the sale deed of the plaintiffs but they did not do so. The plaintiffs’ witness PW/2 Hemant Singh 8 Rajput, PW/3 Chhanu Lal Soni have also supported the claim of the plaintiffs that they have purchased the suit property in the year 1984 from Tijiya Bai for total consideration of Rs. 2000/- and the defendants was a licencee of Tijiya Bai and assured them that he will vacate the suit property very soon. 12. Against the claim of the plaintiffs that he purchased the suit property by the sale deed (Ex-P/2), the defendants have filed a receipt dated 03.02.1949 (Ex-D/3) in which it is mentioned that Nathu Ram has sold the property admeasuring 11 gkFk X 9 gkFk in one side and 24 gkFk X 47 gkFk in another side for total consideration of Rs. 120/-. This is an unregistered sale deed allegedly executed by Nathu Ram which is the strength of the defendants with respect to their possession of the suit property. The defendant No. 1 Ramin Bai has admitted in Para 5 of her cross-examination that she has not filed any document that on the basis of their unregistered sale deed (Ex-D/3), their names have been mutated. She also admitted that in the document (Ex-D/3) the Khasra No. of the land has not been mentioned. She also admitted that in the document (Ex-D/3) there is no signature of either seller or purchaser. She further admitted that in the year 1981, the suit property was not recorded in the name of Ishwar and there is no mentioned of Khasra No. or house No. of the suit property in the receipt Ex-D/2. She also did not know that when the suit house was constructed. She also shown her ignorance about sale of the suit property by Tijiya Bai in favour of plaintiffs. 13. DW/2 Smt. Phoolbati also admitted as to when Bisnath has purchased property from Nathuram and in her presence Bisnath had not purchased his land from Nathuram. She also shown her ignorance 9 about alienation made by Tijiya Bai in favour of the plaintiffs. She too have admitted that she has not filed any document that suit property was recorded in the name of Bisnath. 14. The transfer of title by way of sale is defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the provisions of section 54 is necessary to notice hear, which reads as under:- 54. “Sale” defined – “Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part- promised. Sale how made- Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only be a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delievery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale- A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. 15. The sale deed (Ex-P/2) is a registered sale deed executed by Tijiya Bai for total consideration of Rs. 2000/- with respect to total 746 sq. meter of land and house situated thereon, out of which, in some portion of the property, the defendants are in possession, whereas, the sale deed as claimed by the defendants in their favour (Ex-D/3) is an unregistered sale deed allegedly executed by Nathuram in favour of Bisnath for consideration of Rs. 120/-. As per the provisions of Section 54 of Provisions of Transfer of Property Act, the property valued Rs. 100 or more shall only being transferred by a registered deed of sale and not otherwise. Admittedly, on 03.02.1949, the value of the property was Rs. 10 120/- or more as has been mentioned in the document (Ex-D/3) and therefore, the property of more than Rs. 100 shall transferred by registered sale deed only and the document (Ex-D/3) cannot be considered to be the valid sale in favour of Bisnath. The one important fact is that there is no signature of either seller or purchaser in the said receipt and only the signature of witnesses are there. Whether the Nathuram actually sold the land in favour of Bisnath or not and whether the receipt has actually been executed with respect to any sale in favour of Bisnath is not proved. In the considered opinion of this Court, the document (Ex-D/3) does not transfer any title in favour of the defendants. In view of the respective evidence produced by the parties, about their title over the suit property, it is the plaintiffs who proved their title over the suit property acquired through the registered sale deed dated 03.01.1984 (Ex-P/2) which was executed by Tijiya Bai in their favour and in absence of any challenge to that sale deed, it cannot be doubted or it cannot be said that no title have been passed in favour of the plaintiffs by the said sale deed. 16. The another ground raised by the defendants that the suit land is a nazul land and it is a property of State Government which cannot be alienated or cannot be subject to sale and therefore, even if the sale deed executed by Tijiya Bai, the plaintiffs cannot get any title over the suit property. He would refer to Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, which defines the accommodation and would submit that the house was attached with the land which comes under the definition of accommodation and such land was the government nazul land and is not transferable, therefore, even if the sale deed executed, the suit property cannot be transferred in favour of 11 the plaintiffs. This Court does not impress upon the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents for the reason that the intension of the Tijiya Bai and the plaintiffs to sale and purchase of the suit house situated over the government nazul land. The details of the properties sold to the plaintiffs is mentioned in the sale deed as fooj.k laifr fodz;’kqnk %& dCts o vf/kdkj dh Hkwfe utwy lhV uacj 13 ch- IykV uacj 29 {ks=Qy 746 oxZehVj 8029 oxZQhV HkwHkkVd :0 24&10 iSlk lkykuk ij fLFkr ,d fdrk dPpk edku e; gkrk ckM+h eksgYyk jktkikjk dkadsj rglhy dkdsj ftyk cLrj e0iz0 dherh :i;k 2000&00 iSlk uD’ks dh izfrfyfi utwy dk;kZy; dkadsj ls izkIr dj gejkg LVkai lyXu gS ftlesa fodz; lqnk IykV ykyL;kgh ls vafdr dh xbZ gSA tuinlnL; & dkadsj& uxjikfydk& dkadsj & uksVhQkbZM ,fj;k ugha fodkl[kaM dkadsjA ;g Hkwfe edku laifr flfyax ds vUrxZr ugha vkrh [kjhnnkj ds ikl bl [kjhn edku Hkwfe dks feyk dj Hkh mls flfyax ykxw ugha gksrhA 17. To examined the intension of the parties whether it is with respect to the land or with respect to the house constructed over the land, the contents of the sale deed (Ex-P/2) which is in the form of Ghosna Patra is also necessary to reproduced herein which is reads as under:- ?kks"k.kki= bl nLrkost esa of.kZr Hkwfe edku laifr dk cktkj eqY; :i;k 18000&00iSls dh gS ;fn bl edku Hkwfe dks fdlh vU; ds ikl fodz; fd;k tkrk rks Hkh bldh ;gh dher gksrh rFkk cktkj esa Hkh :i;k 18000&00 iSls ds vf/kd eqY; esa ugha [kjhnrsA 2- bl nLrkost esa of.kZr Hkwfe dk HkwHkkVd :i;k 24&10 iSlk lkykuk dh gS bl ij fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ dj ugha gSA fofnr gks fd eSa viuh fuEu Hkwfe edkulaifr ij Loa; ekfyd dkfct gwa dks Hkkj oxSjg ls eqDr gS vkSj eq>s esjs uke ij izkIr gS ftldh fodz; rcnhydh ckr fdlh vU; ls ugha fd;k gwa pwafd esjs dCts esa vkSj edku Hkwfe gS rFkk esjk jguk vDlj ekStka dqjhLVhdwj gksrh gS rFkk fu% lUrku gwa vkSj eq>s vU; laifr ds lq/kkj 12 gsrq ,ao thou ;kiu ds fy;s iSls dh vkoL;drk gS vr% esa vius dCts o vf/kdkj dh Hkwfe utwy dCts dh lhV uacj 13 ch0 IykV uacj 29 {ks=Qy 746 oxZehVj ;k 8029 oxZQhV HkwHkkVd :i;k 24&10 iSlk lkykuk ij fLFkr ,d fdrk dPpk edku e; gkrk ckM+h ftldh uD’ks dh udy utwy dk;kZy; ls izkIr djds gejkg LVkai pLik gS ftl uD’ksa esa fodz; lqnk IykV ykyL;kgh ls vafdr dh xbZ gS eksgYyk jktkikjk dkadsj rglhy dkadsj ftyk cLrj e0izz0 dks okLrs ges’kk ds fy;s tj[kjhn :i;k 2000&00 iSlk nks gtkj :i;k esa dzsrk ls vkil esa pqdrh Hkj ik dj edku Hkwfe laifr ij dzsrk dks iw.kZ :i ls dCtk ns fn;k vkSj mUgs edku Hkwfe laifr ij ekydh dh iw.kZ gd izkIr gks x;sA vc mDr Hkwfe laifr ckcr dzsrk ls gesa dksbZ ysu nsu mtj >xM+k ugha gS mUgsa edku Hkwfe laifr Hkksx djus ,oa fodz; rcnhy ds iw.kZ :i ls gd gks x;sA ;fn edku Hkwfe laifr fodz; lqnk dzsrk ds dCts ls dqy ;k tqt fudy tkosxh rks eSa mudh dher oks gjtkuk uqdlkuh nsus dh ftEesnkj jgwxhaA 18. From the evidence of the parties, it transpires that the entire suit property including the land and house situated over it, have been transferred in favour of the plaintiffs, from the document (Ex-P/1) which is the nazul assessment khasra form, it also transpires that in the said nazul assessment khasra form, the details of the property is mentioned as “Kachcha Makan map fancing”. It is also the case of the parties that in some part of the suit property that is about 90 sq. meter, the defendants are residing as licencee which also disclosed that the suit house was transferred along with the land over which the house was situated, though, the suit house was over the nazul land but Tijiya Bai was in possession in the nazul abadi land and she was competent to alienate it to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No. 1 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs that they have acquired title by their sale deed dated 03.01.1984 (Ex-P/2) and the finding recorded by the learned Courts below are not sustainable. Consideration with respect to substantial question of law No. 2 :- 19. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for possession and valued the suit Rs. 13 250/- i.e. 1/8th share of Rs. 2000/-. The learned trial Court has considered the valuation of the suit that in the suit for possession the requisite valuation is 20 times of its land revenue. In the present suit, the suit land is nazul land and the land revenue is fixed on it but the plaintiffs has not valued the suit on the basis of its land revenue and only affixed Rs. 25 as court fee which is arbitrary and thus, the suit is not properly valued and no court fee has been paid. The learned first appellate Court has also affirmed in para 14 of its judgment that the land revenue of suit land was has fixed Rs. 24.10 yearly and the plaintiffs have filed the suit for possession over the suit property of 1033 sq. fit and as per the ratio of land revenue, the court fee comes to Rs. 65/- wheres the plaintiffs has paid court fees only Rs. 25/- which is on lower side and the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is upheld. If the learned trial Court comes into conclusion that the suit is not properly valued and no proper court fees has been paid or there is deficiency in payment of court fees, they should invoke the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and to provide an opportunity to rectify the deficit court fee and to pay the same, whereas, from the judgment passed by learned Courts below, it does not found that any opportunity as required under order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was provided to the plaintiffs to pay the deficit court fee. The plaintiffs have valued the suit on the basis of its purchase value i.e. he purchased total 8029 sq. fit of land for total consideration of Rs. 2000/- and he filed the suit for possession of 1033 sq. fit of land which is its 1/8th portion of the total suit property and the plaintiffs has valued his suit as Rs. 250/- which is 1/8th portion of total sale consideration of Rs. 2000/- and has paid Rs. 25/- as court fee, which in the opinion of this Court cannot be said to be perverse or 14 arbitrary. The Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act provided the valuation of the possession of the land, house and gardens which reads as under:- for possession of land, houses and gardens.—(v) In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens—according to the value of the subject-matter; and such value shall be deemed to be— where the subject-matter is land, and— (a) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector’s register as separately assessed with such revenue; and such revenue is permanently settled— ten times the revenue so payable: (b) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid; and such revenue is settled, but not permanently— five times the revenue so payable: (c) where the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue, and net profits have arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint— fifteen times such net profits: but where no such net profits have arisen therefrom— the amount at which the Court shall estimate the land with reference to the value of similar land in the neighbourhood : (d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as above- mentioned—the market-value of the land: 20. For possession of the house, the suit should have been valued according to its market value of the house and garden and it is not an 15 open land on which the plaintiff claimed possession but it is a house on which the plaintiffs claimed possession and therefore, the valuation of the suit shall be made on the basis of its market value. The plaintiffs have purchased the suit house in the year 1984 for the total consideration of Rs. 2000/- and in the year 1986, they valued the suit according to the sale consideration and paid the court fees which cannot be said to be arbitrary or against the provisions of Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and thus, the finding recorded with respect to issue no. 3 is also appears to be perverse and this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have paid the adequate court fees and the substantial question of law no. 2 is answered accordingly. 21. Now with respect to the relief to the plaintiffs is concerned, though, the defendants claims that they are in possession of the suit property from the date of its purchase from their father but in view of the aforesaid consideration that the defendants have failed to prove their title over the suit property as their claim is based on an unregistered sale deed that too there is no signature of seller or purchaser in it and no title have been passed in favour of the defendants. Since, they are claiming their possession by virtue of the sale deed (Ex-D/3), it cannot be considered that the defendants have perfected their title by virtue of their adverse possession as their possession of the party, however long it cannot converted into adverse possession. There are certain requirements to prove the adverse possession but in the present case, claiming possession by virtue of the deed (Ex-D/3) amounts to permission which can never be converted into adverse possession. 22. In the matter of Indira vs Arumugam And Anr. Reported in AIR 1999 SC 1549, it has been held by Hon’ble supreme Court that once 16 the title of the plaintiffs is established over the suit property, unless the defendants proved adverse possession, the plaintiffs cannot be non suited. In the present case, the plaintiffs have proved their title by the sale deed (Ex-P/2) but the defendants have failed to prove either their title or their adverse possession, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of possession of the suit property as mentioned in the map annexed with the plaint. 23. As a fall out, the substantial question of law No. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court are set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed by holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for vacant possession of the suit property as mentioned in the A,B,C,D, part of the map annexed with the plaint. 24. The parties shall bear their own costs. 25. The appellate decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika