1

2026:CGHC:16602-DB

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

First Appeal No. 56 of 2025

1 - Dilip Das S/o Mahetar Das Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Rano, Post

Parpodi, Tahsil Devkar, District Bemetara (C.G.)

2 - Smt. Dashreet Das W/o Dildaar Das Aged About 40 Years R/o Village

Rano, Post Parpodi, Tahsil Devkar, District Bemetara (C.G.)

3 - Santu S/o Ganesh Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Rano, Post

Parpodi, Tahsil Devkar, District Bemetara (C.G.)

4 - Bishal S/o Ghasiya Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Rano, Post

Parpodi, Tahsil Devkar, District Bemetara (C.G.)

… Appellants/Plaintiffs

versus

1 - Basant Kumari Gupta W/o Murlidhar Gupta Aged About 80 Years R/o

House No. 237, Old Post Office Lane, Ward No. 41, Kasaridih, Kelabadi,

Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.)

2

2 - Yogeshwar Sonkar S/o Ballaram Sonkar Aged About 35 Years R/o

House No. 196, Bajrang Chowk, Ward No. 2, Kumhari, Tahsil Damdha,

District Durg (C.G.)

3 - Smt. Pushpa Sonkar W/o Rajeshwar Sonkar Aged About 32 Years R/o

House No. 475, Ganesh Chowk, Ward No. 5, Kumhari, Tahsil Damdha,

District Durg (C.G.)

4 - Prahlad S/o Jogi Verma Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Salhekala,

Post Udaipur, Tahsil Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara

(C.G.)

... 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

दप्रश्न

नि

ष्कर्ष

1.क्

या वादी का वादभूमि पर प्रतिकूल कब्ज़ा है

? "प्र

माणित नहीं

"

2.क्

या वादी प्रतिकूल कब्जे के आधार पर वादभूमि

पर स्

वामित्व की घोषणा का अधिकारी है

?

"प्र

माणित नहीं

"

3.स

हायता एवं व्यय

? "वा

द खारिज

"

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 Others

1

, further

followed with approval in the matter of Ravinder Kaur Grewal v.

Manjit Kaur and Others

2

, 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.

1(2004) 10 SCC 779

2(2019) 8 SCC 729

7

9.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their

rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records

with utmost circumspection.

10.The point for determination that arises in this appeal is, “whether

the trial Court is justified in holding that plaintiffs have failed to

prove the plea of adverse possession taken by them and therefore,

they are not entitled to decree for declaration of title based on

adverse possession, permanent injunction and declaration of sale

deeds dated 23/12/2022 (Exs. P/7 and P/8) executed by defendant

No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 as null and void ?”

11.In order to answer the aforesaid point for determination and to

find out the correct test in relation of title by way of doctrine of

adverse possession, it would be profitable to notice the relevant

statutory provision, necessary ingredients and the principle

underlying the doctrine of adverse possession.

12.Article 65 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 states as under :-

Description of SuitPeriod of

limitation

Time from which

period begins to run

65.For possession of immovable

property or any interest therein

based on title.

Explanation. – For the purposes

of this article -

Twelve yearsWhen the possession

of the defendant

becomes adverse to

the plaintiff.

8

(a) where the suit is by a

remainderman, a reversioner

(other than a landlord) or a

devisee, the possession of the

defendant shall be deemed to

become adverse only when the

estate of the remainderman,

reversioner or devisee, as the

case may be falls into

possession;

(b) where the suit is by a Hindu

or Muslim entitled to the

possession of immovable

property on the death of a

Hindu or Muslim female, the

possession of the defendant

shall be deemed to become

adverse only when the female

dies;

(c) where the suit is by a

purchaser at a sale in execution

of a decree when the

judgment-debtor was out of

possession at the date of the

sale, the purchaser shall be

deemed to be a representative

of the judgment-debtor who

was out of possession.

13.A close reading of the afore-stated provision would show that

when the suit is based on title for possession, once the title is

established on the basis of relevant documents and other

evidences, unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the

prescribed period, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited and burden is

on the defendant to plead and prove that he was in adverse

possession for 12 years before the date of suit and starting point of

9

limitation is the date when the possession of the defendant

became adverse to the plaintiff.

14.The Supreme Court, in the matter of Karnataka Board of Wakf

(supra) , laid down the principles of law which a person claiming

adverse possession should demonstrate by holding that a person

who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he

came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c)

whether the factum of possession was known to the other party,

(d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession

was open and undisturbed. Their Lordships further held that a

person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour.

Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him

to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his

adverse possession.

15.The principle of law laid down in Karnataka Board of Wakf (supra)

has been followed with approval in Ravinder Kaur Grewal (supra)

and their Lordships in paragraphs 60, 61 & 62 of the report laid

down the principles and clearly held that 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 detail of title and his knowledge, and observed as under: -

10

“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 synonymous 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 large the 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.

61.Adverse possession is heritable and there can be

tacking of adverse possession by two or more persons as

the right is transmissible one. In our opinion, it confers a

perfected right which cannot be defeated on re-entry

except as provided in Article 65 itself. Tacking is based

on the fulfillment of certain conditions, tacking may be

by possession by the purchaser, legatee or assignee, etc.

so as to constitute continuity of possession, that person

must be claiming through whom it is sought to be

tacked, and would depend on the identity of the same

property under the same right. Two distinct trespassers

cannot tack their possession to constitute conferral of

right by adverse possession for the prescribed period.

62.We hold that a person in possession cannot be

ousted by another person except by due procedure of

law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is

over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the

possessory owner acquires right, title and interest

possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case

may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion,

consequence is that once the right, title or interest is

11

acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well

as a shield by the defendant within ken of Article 65 of

the Act and any person who has perfected title by way of

adverse possession, can file a suit for restoration of

possession in case of dispossession. In case of

dispossession by another person by taking law in his

hand a possessory suit can be maintained under Article

64, even before the ripening of title by way of adverse

possession. By perfection of title on extinguishment of

the owner’s title, a person cannot be remediless. In case

he has been dispossessed by the owner after having lost

the right by adverse possession, he can be evicted by the

plaintiff by taking the plea of adverse possession.

Similarly, any other person who might have dispossessed

the plaintiff having perfected title by way of adverse

possession can also be evicted until and unless such

other person has perfected title against such a plaintiff

by adverse possession. Similarly, under other Articles

also in case of infringement of any of his rights, a plaintiff

who has perfected the title by adverse possession, can

sue and maintain a suit.”

16.1. In Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case in the matter of M. Siddiq

(Dead) Through Legal Representatives (Ram Janmabhumi Temple

Case) v. Mahant Suresh Das and others

3

, the Supreme Court

(Constitution Bench) has clearly held that the claim on the basis of

adverse possession amounts to acknowledgment of title of person

against whom adverse possession is claimed and observed 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 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 No.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

3(2020) 1 SCC 1

12

Dhavan has submitted that this plea is a subsidiary or

alternate plea upon which it is not necessary for the

plaintiffs to stand in the event that their main plea on

title is held to be established on evidence. It becomes

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. ...”

16.2. Their Lordships further relying upon the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf (supra) held that the

ingredients in terms of that judgment must be set up in the

pleadings and proved in evidence. There can be no proof sans

pleadings and pleadings without evidence will not establish a case

in law.

16.3. Their Lordships also emphasized the need for making clear

averment of adverse possession as under: -

“1154.In a judgment rendered in 2015, one of us

(Abdul Nazeer, J.) as a Single Judge of the Karnataka High

Court succinctly identified and laid down the

prerequisites of a claim to adverse possession in the

following terms: (Pilla Akkayyamma case

4

, SCC OnLine

Kar Para 27)

4 Pilla Akkayyamma v. Channnappa, 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 8226 : ILR 2015 Kar 3841

13

“27.The concept of adverse possession contemplates a

hostile possession i.e. a possession which is expressly or

impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner.

Possession to be adverse must be possession by a

person, who does not acknowledge others’ rights but

denies them. Possession implies dominion and control

and the consciousness in the mind of the person having

dominion over an object that he has it and can exercise

it. Mere possession of the land would not ripen into

possessory title. Possessor must have animus

possidendi and hold the land adverse to the title of the

true owner. Occupation only implies bare use of the

land without any right to retain it. In order to constitute

adverse possession, there must be actual possession of

a person claiming as of right by himself or by persons

deriving title from him. To prove title to the land by

adverse possession, it is not sufficient to show that some

acts of possession have been done. The possession

required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and

in extent to show that it is adverse to the owner. In

other words, the possession must be actual, visible,

exclusive, hostile and continued during the time

necessary to create a bar under the statute of limitation.

30.In a suit falling under Article 65 of the

Limitation Act, plaintiff must establish his title to the

property. He need not prove that he was in possession

within 12 years. If he fails to prove his title, the suits

fails, and the question of adverse possession does not

arise in such a case. When the plaintiff has established

his title to a land, the burden of proving that he has lost

that title by reason of the adverse possession of the

defendant lies upon the defendant. If the defendant

fails to prove that he has been in adverse possession for

more than 12 years, the plaintiff is entitled to succeed

simply on the strength of his title. A person alleging that

he has become owner of immovable property by

adverse possession must establish that he was in

possession of the property peaceably, openly and in

assertion of a title hostile to the real owner. Stricter

proof is required to establish acquisition of title by

adverse possession for the statutory period.”

(emphasis supplied)

14

1155.In Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur

5

, a three-

Judge Bench of this Court of which one of us, Abdul

Nazeer, J. was a part, further developed the law on

adverse possession to hold that any person who has

perfected their title by way of adverse possession, can

file a suit for restoration of possession in case of

dispossession. In this view, adverse possession is both a

sword and a shield.

1156.The plaintiffs have failed to adopt a clear stand

evidently because they are conscious of the fact that in

pleading adverse possession, they must necessarily

carry the burden of acknowledging the title of the

person or the entity against whom the plea of adverse

possession has not been adequately set up in the

pleadings and as noted above, has not been put forth

with any certitude in the course of the submissions.

Above all, it is impossible for the plaintiffs to set up a

case of being in peaceful, open and continuous

possession of the entire property. …”

17.Coming to the facts of the present case in light of the principles of

law laid by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matters of

Karnataka Board of Wakf (supra) followed in Ravinder Kaur

Grewal (supra) and Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case (supra), it is

quite vivid that it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to plead and

establish the date on which they came into possession, what was

the nature of their possession and whether the factum of

possession was known to the defendants; and further that they are

in peaceful possession of the suit land for the statutory period of

12 years, but surprisingly, that has not been pleaded and

established. We shall consider the evidence led by the plaintiffs,

documentary as well as oral, one-by-one.

5 (2019) 8 SCC 729 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 453

15

18.So far as documentary evidence on record is concerned, ‘kishtbandi

khatauni’ or ‘the register of landholdings’ (Ex. P/1 and P/2) for the

year 2012-13 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs wherein the

name of defendant No. 1 i.e. Basant Kumari Gupta has been

mentioned as title-holder as well as possession-holder in all the

entries. Similarly, ‘kishtbandi khatauni’ or ‘the register of

landholdings’ as well as khasra panchshala (Ex. P/3, P/4, P/5 and

P/6) for the year 2022-23 have been filed by the plaintiffs wherein

pursuant to the alienation made by defendant No. 1, the names of

defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 namely Yogeshwar Sonkar

and Smt. Pushpa Sonkar have been recorded as title and

possession-holders of the suit land. Exhibits P/7 and P/8 are the

sale deeds dated 23/12/2022 executed by defendant No. 1 in

favour of defendants No. 2 and 3, respectively. Rin pustika (Exs.

P/9C and P/10C) have also been brought on record by the plaintiffs

in which defendant No. 1’s name has been recorded as title-holder.

As such, there is no documentary evidence available on record to

establish that at the relevant point of time, plaintiffs were in

possession of the suit land and therefore, the plaintiffs have failed

to prove the plea of adverse possession by leading documentary

evidence.

19.Now, we will deal with the oral evidence led by the plaintiffs. So far

as the statement of plaintiff No. 1 Dilip Das (PW-1) is concerned, it

16

is controverted and does not match with the plaint as in the plaint

itself, the plaintiffs have stated that since the suit land was lying

vacant, they started using the land for the purpose of cultivating

crops, however, in his cross-examination, Dilip Das (PW-1) has

stated that he is not aware as to whose land he is in possession of

exactly. He has also failed to disclose the boundary of the suit land

and has also admitted that after the alienation of the suit land by

defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3, defendant No.

4 carries out agricultural work in the suit land.

20.Similarly, Vishal Sahu (PW-2), in his statement before the Court, has

failed to state the area of the land which he is in possession of

except stating approximately 2.5 acres. He has only stated that he

used to sow crops in the suit land and at present, agricultural work

is being carried out by defendant No. 4.

21.Lastly, Mansharam Sahu (PW-3) has also failed to state that on

what date they came to be in possession of the suit land and

further failed to disclose the bhoomiswamis of the adjoining lands.

22.Now, so far as defendants’ witness is concerned, defendant No. 1’s

son-in-law namely Balram Singh Gupta (DW-1) has been examined

as power of attorney holder and he has clearly stated in his

statement before the Court that since her mother-in-law i.e.

defendant No. 1 has become old and weak, he has been looking

17

after the suit land and has been performing agricultural work

therein for the last 12-13 years and after selling the suit land to

defendants No. 2 and 3, they have leased the suit land to

defendant No. 4, who is cultivating crops at present.

23.Thus, from a careful perusal of the record, it is quite evident that

there is no oral as well as documentary evidence available on

record to show that plaintiffs have been able to establish the plea

of adverse possession. As such, it is hereby held that necessary

ingredients to establish the plea of adverse possession have not

been established and plaintiffs have failed to establish that on what

date they came into possession, what was the nature of their

possession and whether the factum of possession was known to

the plaintiff except for simply saying that since the suit land was

lying vacant, they took its possession and starting cultivating crops

and even they have not clearly acknowledged the title of defendant

no. 1 over the suit land which was absolutely necessary for

establishing their plea of adverse possession. The plaintiffs have

also failed to establish that their alleged adverse possession has

ripened into ownership rights by applying the correct doctrine. We

are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly

dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs finding no merit and we

hereby affirm the findings recorded by the trial Court.

18

24.Accordingly, this appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby

dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

25.A decree be drawn-up accordingly.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput)

Judge Judge

Harneet