1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2026 Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, Through its Registrar, Futala Road, Telang Khedi, Nagpur. ... APPELLANT // VERSUS // 1. Smt. Meena Wd/o Dilip Chaudhary, aged about 60 years, Occ. Housewife 2. Shri Kamlesh S/o Dilip Chaudhary, aged about 40 years, Occ. Private Business 3. Shri Mukesh S/o Dilip Chaudhary, aged about 38 years, Occ. Private Business Respondent Nos.1 to 3 residing near Futala Lake, M.E.S. Pump, Late Dilip Chaudhary Road, Telang Khedi, Nagpur. 4. Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, through the Associate Dean, Agriculture College, Maharaj Bagh, Nagpur. 5. The City Survey Officer, City Survey No.3, Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS 2026:BHC-NAG:13617 2 Mr A. Pande, Advocate a/w Mr A. Killedar, Mr S.A. Wandalkar & Ms A. Shah, Advocates for the appellant. Mr A.D. Sonak, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON: 07th OCTOBER, 2026 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 09th OCTOBER, 2026 JUDGMENT (1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. (2) The appellant is the original defendant No.1. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the original plaintiffs. The plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No.213 of 2025 seeking, inter alia, a declaration that they have perfected their title over the suit property by adverse possession, a declaration that the measurement of Survey No.20, Mouza Telangkhedi, Nagpur, undertaken on 24/02/2025, is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and null and void, and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them and from removing the structures standing on the suit property. (3) The case of the plaintiffs is that they and their predecessors have had Khasra No.20 for more than 100 years. According to them, their predecessors, including late Dayaram Chaudhary and thereafter his sons, were using the property for dairy activities and that such possession has continued for a long period. The plaintiffs have claimed title by adverse possession based on such possession. (4) The appellant claims ownership over Survey No.20, Mouza Telangkhedi, City Survey No.65, Nagpur, admeasuring approximately 3 5.40 acres along with the structures standing thereon, pursuant to Government Resolution dated 16/04/2005. According to the appellant, the plaintiffs have no right or title over the property and have failed to disclose the necessary facts constituting their alleged adverse possession. (5) The appellant filed an application below Exhibit-19 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and that the suit, insofar as it challenges the measurement, is barred by law. It was specifically contended that although the plaintiffs claimed possession for more than 100 years, they had not disclosed when and how their predecessor came into possession, the nature of such possession, or the date from which such possession became adverse to the true owner. (6) The plaintiffs thereafter amended the plaint. The appellant, however, contended that even after the amendment, the necessary particulars constituting adverse possession were not pleaded. It was also pointed out that there had been earlier proceedings concerning the same property, including Regular Civil Suit Nos.1038 of 1984 and 2154 of 1987, in which the plea of adverse possession had been raised. (7) The learned Trial Court, upon considering the pleadings and the submissions of the parties, allowed the application below Exhibit-19 and rejected the plaint by order dated 25/04/2025. The original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.170 of 2025. The learned District Judge-9, Nagpur, by judgment and order dated 4 19/11/2025, allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court and remanded the matter for adjudication on merits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the original defendant has preferred the present second appeal. (8) The following substantial question of law arises for consideration: “(i) Whether, on a proper reading of the plaint, the alleged cause of action and right to sue in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3/original plaintiffs against the appellant are real and enforceable, or are merely illusory, thereby rendering the suit liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure?” (9) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaint, even if read as a whole and at its face value, does not disclose a real and subsisting cause of action for seeking a declaration of title by adverse possession. It was submitted that the plaintiffs have claimed to have the property for more than 100 years, but have not disclosed when or how their predecessor entered into possession, in what capacity such possession commenced, when it became hostile to the true owner and in what manner such hostile possession was asserted. (10) Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779, wherein the Supreme Court has held that adverse possession is a blended question of fact and law and that a person claiming adverse possession has to plead and establish the date on which he came into possession, the nature of possession, whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, the period for which possession continued and whether the 5 possession was open and undisturbed. It was submitted that these are material particulars and cannot be left to be supplied through evidence. (11) Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs have principally relied upon the measurement undertaken on 24/02/2025 as giving rise to the cause of action. According to the learned counsel, however, the said measurement cannot constitute a cause of action for a declaration of title by adverse possession. As regards the challenge to the measurement, it was submitted that the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 provides a statutory remedy, including an appeal under Section 247, and therefore the plaintiffs cannot maintain a civil suit merely to challenge the revenue measurement proceedings. (12) Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the plaintiffs had relied upon an alleged incident dated 16/01/2023, alleging that the officers had visited the property with machinery with an intention to dispossess them. It was submitted that there was no actual dispossession or other overt act on that occasion and that the concerned persons had left the property. It was further submitted that the said allegation was introduced by way of amendment after the application under Order VII Rule 11 had already been filed and was, therefore, only an attempt to create a cause of action where none existed. (13) Learned counsel also submitted that the plaintiffs had not properly disclosed the previous proceedings concerning the suit property. Reference was made to Regular Civil Suit No.1038 of 1984 and Regular Civil Suit No.2154 of 1987, wherein the claim of adverse 6 possession had earlier been raised. It was submitted that the earlier litigation could not be ignored while considering whether the present plaint discloses a real cause of action. (14) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the plaintiffs have sought not only a declaration of adverse possession but also protection of their possession by way of injunction. It was submitted that the question whether the plaintiffs are actually in possession and whether such possession is adverse to the true owner are matters which require adjudication on evidence and cannot be decided at the stage of consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (15) Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 further submitted that mere absence of a specific date of commencement of adverse possession cannot by itself result in rejection of the plaint, particularly when the plaintiffs have asserted long-standing possession over the property. It was submitted that the ingredients of adverse possession can be established by leading evidence and that the learned First Appellate Court was justified in restoring the suit for adjudication on merits. (16) Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208, and submitted that a plaint cannot ordinarily be rejected in its entirety merely because one of the reliefs or causes of action may not be maintainable, if another relief is founded upon an independent cause of 7 action and is otherwise maintainable. It was, therefore, submitted that the relief of injunction and protection of possession could not have been rejected merely on the ground that the claim of adverse possession was not sufficiently pleaded. (17) Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to examine the nature of the relief sought by the plaintiffs. The principal relief claimed by the plaintiffs is a declaration that they have acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession. The injunction sought by them is consequential to the claim of possession and title. (18) It is well settled that a plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law. It is a blended question of fact and law. A person claiming title by adverse possession has to plead facts showing the commencement, nature and character of his possession and the point of time from which such possession became hostile to the true owner. The requirements stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf (supra) are therefore required to be borne in mind while examining the plaint. (19) In the present case, the plaintiffs have asserted that their ancestors and thereafter the plaintiffs have had the property for more than 100 years. However, the plaint does not disclose when their predecessor entered into possession of the property, in what capacity such possession commenced, or the circumstances in which the possession became hostile to the true owner. There is also no specific averment disclosing the point in time from which the plaintiffs claim that their possession became adverse. 8 (20) The mere assertion that possession has continued for more than 100 years cannot, by itself, constitute a complete plea of adverse possession. The length of possession is only one of the relevant circumstances. The plaintiff claiming adverse possession is required to plead the facts from which the hostile character of the possession can be ascertained. In the absence of such material particulars, the defendant cannot be expected to meet a specific case of adverse possession. (21) It is true that, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to look at the averments in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff and not at the defence of the defendant. However, the question in the present case is whether the plaint itself contains the necessary factual foundation for the relief claimed. If the plaint does not disclose the material facts constituting the cause of action, the matter cannot be left open merely on the ground that evidence may subsequently be led. (22) The contention of the respondents that the plaintiffs would establish their adverse possession through evidence cannot therefore be accepted. Evidence can be led only in support of facts which have been pleaded. In the present case, the foundational facts regarding commencement and hostile character of possession have not been sufficiently pleaded. (23) The plaintiffs have also challenged the measurement of Survey No.20 undertaken on 24/02/2025. The appellant has pointed out that the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code provides a statutory 9 mechanism for questioning the revenue proceedings, including the remedy of appeal under Section 247. The availability of such statutory remedy is also a relevant circumstance while examining the maintainability of the relief sought in respect of the measurement. (24) The plaintiffs have further relied upon an alleged apprehension of dispossession. However, the pleadings, as pointed out by the appellant, do not disclose any completed act of dispossession or any specific and immediate overt act demonstrating that the plaintiffs were actually sought to be dispossessed from the suit property. The mere apprehension of dispossession, in the circumstances of the present case, cannot by itself supply the missing foundational facts necessary for the principal relief of declaration of title by adverse possession. (25) The record also indicates that there have been earlier proceedings concerning the suit property. Regular Civil Suit No.1038 of 1984 and Regular Civil Suit No.2154 of 1987 are stated to have involved claims relating to the same property and the plea of adverse possession. The fact that earlier proceedings were dismissed or came to an end in the manner stated by the parties does not, by itself, confer title by adverse possession upon the plaintiffs. The said proceedings, however, are material while examining the pleadings and the cause of action pleaded in the present suit. (26) The submission of the respondents based on Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. (supra) also does not assist them in the facts of the present case. The principle that a plaint cannot be partially rejected 10 where an independent cause of action survives is not in dispute. However, in the present case, the injunction sought by the plaintiffs is connected with their claim of possession and title by adverse possession. The question is not merely whether one of several reliefs is defective, but whether the plaint discloses the necessary cause of action for the principal relief on which the consequential relief is founded. (27) Similarly, the reliance placed upon the judgment in Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors. 2025 INSC 485 is required to be considered in the context of the facts of that case. The principle relied upon by the appellant concerns the consequence of a legally unsustainable principal relief upon consequential reliefs. In the present case, however, the rejection of the plaint is founded principally upon the absence of the necessary factual foundation for the plea of adverse possession and the consequential reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs. (28) On a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole, therefore, the plaintiffs have not disclosed the material facts necessary to constitute their alleged title by adverse possession. The plaint merely contains a general assertion of possession for more than 100 years without disclosing the date and circumstances of commencement of possession or the point in time and manner in which the possession became hostile to the true owner. (29) The learned Trial Court, after considering the pleadings, had rightly found that the plaint did not disclose the necessary cause of action and had rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The 11 learned First Appellate Court, while setting aside the said order and remanding the matter for trial, failed to consider the absence of the basic particulars necessary for the plea of adverse possession. (30) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant. The plaint does not disclose a real and enforceable cause of action for the principal relief claimed by the plaintiffs, and the alleged cause of action, in the facts and pleadings of the present case, is illusory. (31) Consequently, the judgment and order dated 19/11/2025 passed by the learned District Judge-9, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No.170 of 2025 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. (32) Hence, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The Second Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and order dated 19/11/2025 passed by the learned District Judge-9, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No.170 of 2025 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The judgment and order dated 25/04/2025 passed below Exhibit-19 by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is confirmed. (iv) Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) ..A.. Signed by: A.P. ANSARI Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/10/2026 16:13:31