2026:CGHC:25736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Second Appeal No. 46 of 2021 Virendra Nath Kushwaha, S/o Ramkrishna Kushwaha, aged about 48 years, R/o Village Ghatayi, Tehsil Bharatpur, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh) ---- Appellant Versus 1 - Bijendra Nath Kushwaha, S/o Sitaram Kushwaha, aged about 60 years, R/o Village Darain District Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Koriya Baikunthpur District Koriya (Chhattisgarh). --- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Pawas Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Santosh Soni, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 13.07.2026 1. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) by the appellant / plaintiff Claimant is to judgment and decree dated 08.01.2021 passed by I Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, District – Korea (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. - 09A/2016. 2. By the said judgment and decree, the learned First Additional District Judge has dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff filed under section 96 of the CPC and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class - II, Janakpur, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 13A/2013. 3. Parties are referred as per to their status before the learned Civil Judge. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.22 10:02:33 +0530 -2- 4. The suit property is comprised in piece of Khasra Nos. 199, 205, 354, 448, 449, 456, 599 area 0.44, 1.75, 0.97, 0.23, 0.81, 0.28 and 0.32 respectively situated at Village – Ghatai, Tehsil – Bharatpur, District – Koriya (C.G.). According to the case of plaintiff, the suit property is in physical possession of the plaintiffs as he reside in Village – Ghatai and defendant No.1 reside at Village – Darain. The defendant No.1 never resided at Village – Ghatai and the father of the plaintiff namely Ramkrishana was Government School Teacher at Village – Ghatai. The said property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff in his name in the year 1975-76 by Registered sale-deed. The defendant No.1 being close relative of the father of the plaintiff without his knowledge and consent recorded his name in the sale-deed. The defendant No.1 never remained in the possession of the suit property rather it continue to remain with the plaintiff. As the father of the plaintiff is a Government Employee, he could have not purchased the suit property in his name without the permission of the State Government. Thus, in order to get the sale-deed registered in the name of plaintiff, he being a minor accompanied by the defendant No.1. However, the defendant No.1 recorded his name along-with the plaintiff in the sale-deed. The plaintiff being owner of the suit property was continuing possession of the same from the year - 1975 and still cultivating upon it. The defendant does not has any right or ownership on possession of the suit property. Thus on the basis of adverse possession, the defendant No.1 has been outside from the title of the suit property and the plaintiff has become the title holder on account of adverse possession. Thus declaration of title was made and decree of permanent injunction has also been claimed. Restraining the defendant No.1 to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff . 5. The written statement is filed by the defendant No.1 and denied the -3- averments of the plaint. It was pleaded that in the year 1974, the suit property was purchased by the defendant No.1 from the seller namely Mohan, S/o. Munda Panika, Village – Ghatai, Tehsil – Bharatpur, District - Sarguja through the registered sale-deed of Rs.2000/-. Likewise, sale-deed was only executed for sale consideration of Rs.1100/- from Jagrakhan, S/o. Hardeen Panika. The defendant No.1 is in possession of suit property and cultivating upon it. It is further pleading of the defendant No.1 is that he permanently resided at Village – Dareen, however during the agricultural season he stays at Village – Ghatai and perform the agricultural work. The defendant No.1 and plaintiff’s father being in closed relations. The suit property was given on lease for cultivation to defendant No.1 for few days. However, after cultivating on lease, the defendant No.1 started claiming his title over the suit property and stop payment of the lease rent. The defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit property since year -1974. It has been further of the plaintiff was educated person, he took him for the registration of the sale-deed, however, with ulterior motive with the help of the document writer he included the name of the son in the sale-deed. Thus, civil suit may be dismissed and defendant No.1 declared as title holder of the suit property. 6. On the basis of above learned Court framed following issues :- S.No. विचारणीय प्रश्न निनष्कर्ष 1. क्या वादी ग्राम घटई प.ह.नं.5. तहसील भरतपर जिल कोरिरया छ.ग. स्थित खसीर नंम्बर 199,205, 354,448, 449, 456, 599, रकोबा कोमशः$ 0.44, 1.75, 0.97, 0.23, 0.81, 0.32, एवा 0.32 ह&क्टे&यार भ(जिम पर प्रजितको ल आजि+पत्य को& आ+र पर स्वत्वाजि+कोर ह/ ? प्रमजि0त नंह -4- 2. क्या वादी प्रजितवादी को .1, त 2 उसीको& रिश्तेदा को& स्थिखलफ ई जिनंषे&+ज्ञा को डि क्री प्रप्त कोरनं& को अजि+कोर ह/ ? प्रमजि0त नंह 3. अनुतेष एवा व्यया ? वादी को डिदा जिनंरस्त । 7. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, learned Court has decided the above issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by the judgment impugned. Hence this appeal. 8. In order to prove his pleadings, the plaintiff examined five witnesses and exhibited seven documents. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff submits that admittedly sale deed - Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-3 name of the plaintiff is recorded as one of the owner. Thus it is quite apparent that he is also having half share of suit property. Apart from this, after the sale-deed was executed, by oral evidence, the plaintiff has been able to prove that he was in possession of the suit property. The defendant himself has admitted that he is a permanent resident of Village – Daira, thus it cannot be assumed that he had any possession of the suit property which is situated at Village – Ghatai. As plaintiff’s possession were never objected by the defendant No.1 and his possession was peaceful, uninterrupted and continuous for more than forty years, thus, the plaintiff has perfected his title on account of adverse possession. The learned trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence to it’s proper prospective and erroneously decided the issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff. He further submits that even plea of adverse possession is not accepted, the sale-deed contains -5- the name of the plaintiff’s as one of the purchaser, at least declaration for half share of the suit property may be made. The appeal may be admitted on substantial question of law as proposed in a memo of appeal. 10.Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/State submits that the dispute is between the private parties State is a formal party. 11.Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records of the Court below with utmost circuminspection. 12.The suit which has been filed by the plaintiff’s is for declaration of title on account of adverse possession and permanent injunction against the defendant No.1. As per the case of the plaintiff, the suit property was purchased by his father in his name and defendant No.1 conveyance also included his name in the sale-deed. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 has never remain in the possession of the suit property not being the resident of the same village. Oral evidence have been led in this regard by the plaintiff. While deciding the issue No.1, the learned Tribunal has meticulously examined the evidence brought on record. The trial court found that the plaintiff could not prove the continuous possession of the suit property and ultimately dismissed the suit. This findings which have ben recorded by the Civil Court has also been affirmed by the Appellate Court. 13.The law with regard to perfection of title on the basis of adverse possession is no longer res integra. A Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Siddiq (dead) through LRs. (Ram Jan-mabhumi Temple case) v. Mahant Suresh Das and ors. reported in (2020) 1 SCC 1 in paragraph 1142-1143 held as under:- “1142. A plea of adverse possession is founded on the acceptance that ownership of the property vests in another against whom the claimant asserts a -6- possession adverse to the title of the other. Possession is adverse in the sense that it is contrary to the acknowledged title in the other person against whom it is claimed. Evidently, therefore, the plaintiffs in Suit 4 ought to be cognizant of the fact that any claim of adverse possession against the Hindus or the temple would amount to an acceptance of a title in the latter. Dr Dhavan has submitted that this plea is a subsidiary or alternate plea upon which it is not neces sary for the plaintiffs to stand in the event that their main plea on title is held to be established on evidence. It be comes then necessary to assess as to whether the claim of adverse possession has been established. 1143. A person who sets up a plea of adverse possession must establish both possession which is peaceful, open and continuous possession which meets the requirement of being nec vi nec claim and nec precario. To substantiate a plea of adverse possession, the character of the possession must be adequate in continuity and in the public because the possession has to be to the knowledge of the true owner in order for it to be adverse. These requirements have to be duly established first by adequate pleadings and second by leading sufficient evidence. Evidence, it is well settled, can only be adduced with reference to matters which are pleaded in a civil suit and in the absence of an adequate pleading, evidence by itself cannot supply the deficiency of a pleaded case. Reading paragraph 11(a), it becomes evident that beyond stating that the Muslims have been in long exclusive and continuous possession beginning from the time when the Mosque was built and until it was desecrated, no factual basis has been furnished. This is not merely a matter of details or evidence. A plea of adverse possession seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner and the law is not readily accepting of such a case unless a clear and cogent basis has been made out in the pleadings and established in the evidence. 14.This judgment was relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttam Chand (Dead) through LRs Versus Nathu Ram (dead) through LRs reported in (2020) 11 SCC 263 in para 15. In case of M.Karim Vs. Mst Bibi Sakina reported in AIR 1964 SC 1254, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, -7- in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found. here is no evidence here when possession became adverse, if it at all did, and a mere suggestion in the relief clause that there was an uninterrupted possession for "several 12 years" or that the plaintiff had acquired "an absolute title" was not enough to raise such a plea. Long possession is not necessarily adverse possession and the prayer clause is not a substitute for a plea.” 15.In case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and ors. Vs. Manjit Kaur and ors. reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “60. The adverse possession requires all the three classic requirements to co-exist at the same time, namely, nec vi i.e. adequate in continuity, nec clam i.e., adequate in publicity and nec precario i.e. adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge. Visible, notorious and peaceful so that if the owner does not take care to know notorious facts, knowledge is attributed to him on the basis that but for due diligence he would have known it. Adverse possession cannot be decreed on a title which is not pleaded. Animus possidendi under hostile colour of title is required. Trespasser’s long possession is not synonym with adverse possession. Trespasser’s possession is construed to be on behalf of the owner, the casual user does not constitute adverse possession. The owner can take possession from a trespasser at any point in time. Possessor looks after the property, protects it and in case of agricultural property by and the large concept is that actual tiller should own the land who works by dint of his hard labour and makes the land cultivable. The legislature in various States confers rights based on possession” 16.Following observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chatti Konati Rao & Ors Vs Palle Venkata Subba Rao reported in (2010) 14 SCC 316 with regard to plea of adverse possession:- 15. Animus possidendi as is well known a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. Mere possession does not ripen into possessory title until possessor holds property adverse to the title of the true owner for the said purpose. The person who claims adverse -8- possession is required to establish the date on which he came in possession, nature of possession, the factum of possession, knowledge to the true owner, duration of possession and possession w as open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour as he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner and, hence, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish adverse possession. The courts always take unkind view towards statutes of limitation overriding property rights. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. 17.In light of the above authoritative judgments, the plaintiff in order to acquire title on adverse possession was required to plead and prove (i) on what date he came into possession, (ii) what was the nature of his possession, (iii) whether the factum of possession was known to the defendants/respondents, (iv) how long his possession was continued, (v) his possession was open and undisturbed, (vi) date on which his possession became adverse. 18.Perusal of record does not indicate that the plaintiff was able to prove as to on what date he came into possession and when his possession become adverse within in the knowledge of the original Owner. And mere continuous uninterrupted possession is not the only consideration for grant of decree of declaration title on account of adverse possession. Until and unless the ingredients as stated above is proved, no decree of declaration of title on account of adverse possession can be granted. Thus, this Court does not find any error or irregularity in the judgment of trial court as well as First Appellate Court in respect to issue Nos. 1 and 2. 19.The other submission which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that even plea of adverse possession is not accepted, the declaration to the half share of the suit may be made as the sale-deed also includes the name of the plaintiff i.e. one of the owner of the suit property. -9- This contention at this stage cannot be accepted because from very beginning the case of the plaintiff was on account of adverse possession. Plea of the adverse possession can only be taken against the original owner meaning thereby once plea of adverse possession taken by plaintiff thereby he accepted the title of the defendant No.1 which does not appear for any adjudication by this Court. 20.In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314 and in the matter of Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through LRs. & Ors. Vs. Saraswati & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273 no substantial question of law is involved which is sine qua non for admitting the appeal, the present appeal thus sans merit and is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 21. No order as to costs. 22.Decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/ -Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish