1 CGHC010215262017 2026:CGHC:31763 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 451 of 2017 Shobhnath S/o Daula Ram, Aged About 52 Years Occupation Cultivator, R/o Village Hariharpur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Kedarnath Namdeo S/o Rupchand Namdeo, Aged About 54 Years R/o Bramhapara, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Shashi Prabha Namdeo S/o Ambika Prasad Namdeo, Aged About 42 Years R/o Bramhapara, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Krishna, Aged About 62 Years R/o Bramhapara, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Patru S/o Krishna, Aged About 29 Years R/o Bramhapara, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Khushbu D/o Krishna, Aged About 27 Years R/o Bramhapara, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Maya D/o Krishna, Aged About 22 Years R/o Bramhapara, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 7 - Rajat S/o Krishna, Aged About 20 Years R/o Bramhapara, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 8 - Sulochana D/o Late Awadhnath, Aged About 21 Years R/o Bramhapara, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Santosh Soni, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.07.31 15:09:21 +0530 2 Judgment on Board 24.07.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The parties are referred to their original status before the learned trial Court. 3. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the CPC") calling in question the legality, correctness and validity of the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2017 passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 65-A/2012 (hereinafter referred to as "learned First Appellate Court"). 4. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 96 of the CPC and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Civil Judge"). 5. The plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking a declaration of title by adverse possession and permanent injunction in respect of the agricultural land situated at Village Hariharpur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, bearing Khasra Nos. 21/1, 77, 301 and 345, total area 1.651 hectares as described in Schedule 'A' to the plaint. The appellant/plaintiff is a resident of Village Darima and an agriculturist, pleaded that although the suit land continues to stand recorded in the names of the defendants, he has remained in open, peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession thereof for more than twenty-five years, cultivating the land throughout to the knowledge of the defendants. It was further pleaded that the defendants and their predecessor, late Roopchand, having owned more than 40 acres of agricultural land in Village Hariharpur, shifted to Ambikapur over fifty years ago, lost interest in cultivation and gradually alienated most of their holdings and abandoned cultivation of the remaining land. It is 3 further pleaded that in the month of January, defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 visited the village, demanded that he vacate the suit land and attempted to dispossess him on the strength of a decree obtained in Civil Suit. On enquiry, the appellant/plaintiff learnt that the said decree had been passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, against Tileshwar, Balram, Nanka and Tilsai, who, according to the appellant/plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the suit land and had allowed the suit to proceed ex parte. The appellant/plaintiff asserted that he was neither a party to the said proceedings nor bound by the decree, yet the defendants continued to threaten his dispossession thereunder. On the aforesaid pleadings, the appellant/plaintiff contended that he had perfected his title over the suit land by adverse possession and that the defendants had lost their right, title and interest therein. Thus, seeking above stated reliefs, the suit was filed. 6. The respondent No. 1 to 4/defendant Nos. 1 to 4 remained ex parte before the learned Civil Judge and they do not file any written statement. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Civil Judge framed the following issues for determination. “(i)Whether the plaintiff has perfected his title over the suit property described in Schedule 'A' by way of adverse possession? (ii)Whether the defendants are causing unlawful interference with the plaintiff's peaceful possession over the suit property described in Schedule 'A'? (iii)Relief and costs?” 8. In support of his case, the appellant/plaintiff examined four witnesses. 9. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Civil Judge decided the issues against the appellant/plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/plaintiff preferred a first appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. The learned First Appellate Court, by the 4 impugned judgment and decree, found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, this second appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse, contrary to the evidence available on record and unsustainable in law. He submits that the learned Civil Judge erroneously placed reliance upon the judgment and decree passed in favour of respondent No. 1 to 4/defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in Civil Suit No. 7-A/2002, though the appellant/plaintiff was not a party to the said proceedings and, therefore, the said decree is neither binding upon him nor capable of being executed against him. He further submits that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellant/plaintiff had remained in open, continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession of the suit land for more than twenty-five years to the knowledge of the predecessor-in-interest as well as respondent No. 1 to 4/defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and had consequently perfected his title by adverse possession. He further submits that despite the fact that respondent No. 1 to 4/defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have not appeared before this Court, the unrebutted testimony of the appellant/plaintiff has been discarded by learned Civil Judge as well as learned First Appellate Court by recording findings which are contrary to the evidence on record and, therefore, perverse. Therefore, he prays that the appeal deserves to be admitted on the substantial questions of law proposed in the memorandum of appeal. 11. Learned State counsel submits that the dispute is essentially between the appellant/plaintiff and respondent No. 1 to 4/defendant Nos. 1 to 4, the State being only a formal party. Nevertheless, he supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with utmost circumspection. 5 13. Mr. D. N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff advanced two submissions in support of the appeal. Firstly, it was contended that the appellant/plaintiff was not a party to the earlier civil suit culminating in the judgment and decree (Exhibits P-1 and P-2) and, therefore, the findings recorded therein are not binding upon him. Secondly, it was submitted that irrespective of the said decree, the appellant/plaintiff has perfected the title over the suit property by way of adverse possession. 14. The principal question which arose for consideration before the learned Civil Judge was whether the appellant/plaintiff had succeeded in establishing acquisition of title by adverse possession. The said issue has been examined in detail by the learned Civil Judge in paragraphs No. 6.2 and 6.3 of the impugned judgment. 15. Upon due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly Ex. P-1 and P-2, the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Ambikapur, it is evident that the learned Civil Judge recorded a categorical finding that the defendants were in possession of the suit property after the death of the appellant's father. The learned Civil Judge also considered the contention of the appellant/plaintiff that the said judgment and decree was not binding upon him on the ground that he was not a party to the earlier proceedings. 16. Since the appellant/plaintiff sought a declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession, the burden lay entirely upon him to plead and prove the date from which his possession became hostile to the true owner and that such possession remained open, continuous, uninterrupted, exclusive and to the knowledge of the true owner for the statutory period. 17. It is settled position of law that the person who pleads to perfect his title on the basis of adverse possession is required to prove and plead the following conditions: 6 i) on what date he came into possession, ii) what was the nature of his possession, iii) whether the factum of possession was know 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. While appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Civil Judge noticed that the earlier judgment and decree (Exhibits P-1 and P-2) unequivocally recognised the possession of respondent Nos. 1 to 4/defendant Nos. 1 to 4 over the suit property. It was further noticed that the appellant/plaintiff neither questioned the said judgment nor initiated any proceedings to establish that his alleged hostile possession continued thereafter so as to mature into title. On the strength of the findings recorded in the earlier proceedings, the learned Civil Judge held that the appellant/plaintiff's claim of exclusive possession over the suit property stood effectively rebutted. 19. The learned Civil Judge further took into consideration the revenue records for the year 2010–11 (Exhibits P-3 and P-4) wherein the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 stood recorded as Bhumiswamis. The said revenue entries lend support to the case of the defendants regarding their title and possession over the suit property. Except making a bald assertion regarding his possession for the last twenty-five years, the appellant/plaintiff did not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate such plea. Consequently, the learned Civil Judge held that the appellant/plaintiff had failed to establish continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession over the suit property for the statutory period. These findings of fact have been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. 20. It is well settled that a plea of adverse possession is an exception to the ordinary law governing title to immovable property and, therefore, the burden lies heavily 7 upon the person asserting such a plea. Every constituent element of adverse possession is required to be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Mere long or uninterrupted possession, however extended, does not by itself mature into ownership unless the possession is shown to be hostile to the title of the true owner and continued openly, exclusively and uninterruptedly to the knowledge of the true owner for the prescribed period. 21. 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 ac- ceptance that ownership of the property vests in another against whom the claimant asserts a 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, there- fore, the plaintiffs in Suit No. 4 ought to be cognizant of the fact that any claim of adverse possession against the Hin-dus or the temple would amount to an acceptance of a ti- tle 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 8 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 co- gent basis has been made out in the pleadings and estab-lished in the evidence.” 22. 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, 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.” 23. 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.” 9 24. Following observation was made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chatti Konati Rao & Others 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 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 was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour as he is trying top 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.” 25. In the present case, the learned Civil Judge as well as learned Appellate Court have concurrently recorded a finding that the appellant/plaintiff failed to establish the date on which his possession became adverse to the true owner. There is also no evidence to establish that such hostile possession was ever brought to the knowledge of the defendants or their predecessor-in-interest. Equally, the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove that his possession continued uninterruptedly with the necessary animus to hold the property adverse to the true owner for the statutory period. The concurrent finding recorded by the learned Civil Judge as well as learned Appellate Court is founded upon proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and does not suffer from any perversity or misreading of evidence. 10 26. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon careful examination of the entire material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to establish the essential ingredients necessary for acquisition of title by adverse possession. This Court does not find any perversity, manifest illegality or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. 27. It is well settled that for admission of a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, formulation of a substantial question of law is sine qua non, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and sons Ltd. v. 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. In the case at hand, no perversity or legal infirmity has been demonstrated so as to give rise to any substantial question of law requiring consideration by this Court. 28. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are affirmed. 29. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Decree be drawn accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE H. Ansari