Dilip Das v. Bas

... Respondents/Defendants (Cause-title taken from CIS) For Appellants : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 5/State : Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. G.A. DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment On Board

10.04.2026 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this appeal questioning the illegality, validity and correctness of the 3 impugned judgment and decree dated 03/01/2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Principal District Judge, Bemetara in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2023 whereby the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession, permanent injunction and for declaration of sale deeds dated 23/12/2022 (Exs. P/7 and P/8) executed by respondent/defendant No. 1 in favour of respondents/defendants No. 2 and 3, respectively, as null and void has been dismissed finding no merit. (For the sake of convenience, parties would be hereinafter referred as per their status and ranking shown in the suit before the trial Court.)

2. Plaintiffs instituted the civil suit stating inter alia that the suit land bearing Khasra No. 284 area 10.60 acres (4.24 hectare) situated at Village Rano, Tahsil Devkar, District Bemetara (C.G.) was lying vacant since 1990 and as plaintiffs are marginal agriculturists and are engaged in agricultural work, taking advantage of the suit land lying vacant and unused, they undertook peaceful possession and started cultivating crops in the said suit land, which was well within the knowledge of defendant No. 1 as well as other villagers yet defendant No. 1 or the members of her family never made any complaints, oral or written, and never raised any objection, as such, plaintiffs No. 1, 3 and 4 remained in continuous and uninterrupted 4 possession of the suit land for the last 33 years and plaintiff No. 2 remained in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land for the last 33 years and at present also, plaintiffs are possession-holders of the suit land. However, on 23/12/2022, defendant No. 1 alienated the suit land to defendants No. 2 and 3 by bisecting it into two parts and executed sale deeds (Exs. P/7 and P/8) ignoring the fact that plaintiffs have been in long and continuous possession of the suit land and they have already perfected their title by way of adverse possession. As such, decree for declaration of title through adverse possession, permanent injunction and declaration of sale deeds dated 23/12/2002 (Exs. P/7 and P/8) be passed in their favour.

3. Defendant No. 1 filed her written statement and while opposing the plaint averments, she has further stated that she is an old and ailing woman and after the death of her husband Murlidhar Gupta, the suit land was being looked after by her son-in-law namely Balram Gupta (DW-1) and she has executed registered sale deeds dated 23/12/2022 (Exs. P/7 and P/8) and sold the suit land to defendants No. 2 and 3.

4. Defendants No. 2 to 4 have jointly filed their written statement and they have also opposed the plaint averments and stated further that defendant No. 1 is the exclusive title and possession holder of 5 the suit land and accordingly, she had the right to alienate the suit land in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 and pursuant to the alienation, defendants No. 2 and 3 have been in possession of the suit land and they have leased it to defendant No. 4 who carries out agricultural work in the suit land. As such, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.

5. After pleading of the parties, learned trial Court framed three issues and answered them as stated below :- क्र. वा(cid:3)दप्रश्न नि(cid:9)ष्कर्ष(cid:13)

1. क्या(cid:3) वा(cid:3)दी(cid:7) का(cid:3) वा(cid:3)दीभू(cid:10)मि(cid:12) पर प्रति(cid:17)का(cid:10) ल काब्ज़ा(cid:3) है(cid:22) ? "प्रमा(cid:3)णि(cid:16)त (cid:9)हीं(cid:19)"

2. क्या(cid:3) वा(cid:3)दी(cid:7) प्रति(cid:17)का(cid:10) ल काब्जे(cid:24) का(cid:24) आधा(cid:3)र पर वा(cid:3)दीभू(cid:10)मि(cid:12) "प्रमा(cid:3)णि(cid:16)त (cid:9)हीं(cid:19)" पर स्वा(cid:3)मि(cid:12)त्वा का(cid:29) घो(cid:31)षणा(cid:3) का(cid:3) अमिधाका(cid:3)र# है(cid:22) ?

3. सहै(cid:3)या(cid:17)(cid:3) एवा& व्यया ? "वा(cid:3)द खा(cid:3)रि(cid:22)ज"

6. In sum and substance, the trial Court held that since plaintiffs have failed to prove the ingredients of adverse possession, therefore, they are not entitled for obtaining decree for declaration of title by way of adverse possession and thereby, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

7. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs by recording a finding 6 which is perverse and contrary to the record. The plea of adverse possession taken by the plaintiffs has duly been established by them by leading oral evidence in the shape of testimonies of plaintiff No. 1 Dilip Das (PW-1), Vishal Sahu (PW-2) and Mansharam Sahu (P.W.-3), therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and plaintiffs are entitled for decree as claimed by them.

8. Per contra, Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondents/defendants No. 1 to 4, would support the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and submit that none of the ingredients of adverse possession, as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Karnataka Board of Waqf v. Government of India and Others1, further followed with approval in the matter of Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur and Others2, has been established by the plaintiffs and moreover, all the documentary evidence led by the plaintiffs themselves shows the title and possession of defendant No. 1 over the suit land, as such, she has rightly alienated the suit land in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 which has further been leased by them to defendant No. 4 for the purpose of cultivating crops. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiffs has rightly been dismissed by the trial Court, which also deserves acceptance by this Court.