IMPORTANT POINT
Mere long possession for a period of more than 12 years without intention to possess suit land adversely to title of plaintiff and to latter s knowledge cannot result in acquisition of title.

JUDGMENT

Dharmadhikari, J.-By the judgment impugned in this appeal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Second Appeal No. 518 of 1978 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has reversed the concurrent findings in the judgments of the two courts below and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff [respondent herein] for delivery of possession of suit land to the extent of 70 X 20 in Survey No. 452. The land in Survey No. 452 has been found by all the courts to be of the ownership of the plaintiff. The land is alleged to have been encroached upon by deceased - Deva, the sole defendant, who is succeeded by his legal representatives as appellants in this appeal. Deva was owner and in possession of the adjoining land in Survey No. 453.

2. The plaintiff s case is that while he was out of the village in the course of his duties being in government service, the defendant - Deva encroached upon suit land in July, 1966. The suit of possession was instituted on 18.12.1972.

3. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation on a finding that the defendant is in possession of the encroached land since Samvat 1996 i.e. the year 1940.

4. The first appellate court confirmed the above finding of the trial court and upheld the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation.

5. The High Court in Second Appeal has reversed the judgments of the two courts below by relying on defendant s own admission in the witness-box that he came to know of his alleged encroachment of land in Survey No. 452 belonging to the ownership of the plaintiff only after filing of the suit. The High Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that on this admission of the defendant, he could not be held to have prescribed title by adverse possession.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this appeal, questions the jurisdiction of the High Court in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to interfere with the concurrent findings of the facts of two courts below it,

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff supported the judgment of the High Court. It is submitted that since a very important piece of evidence in the nature of admission of the defendant had been overlooked by the courts below and thus the suit was wrongly dismissed on the ground of limitation, there was full justification for the High Court in Second Appeal to reverse the judgments of the courts below.

8. Since a doubt arose with regard to the content and effect of the alleged admission of the defendant in the witness-box, we directed the parties to supply translated copies of the depositions of the witnesses recorded in the trial court. The necessary copies of the depositions were not available with the counsel. We have, therefore, requisitioned the record of the trial court. On looking into the record, we find that the High Court was right in interfering with the judgments of the courts below on the basis of admission contained in the statement of the defendant. It clearly negatives his case of being in adverse possession of the encroached portion of the land from the year 1940. The relevant part of the admission in the statement of defendant - Deva (SDW-6) [rendered into English] reads as under:-

"The land measuring 70 X 20 of Survey No. 453 of Sajjan Kumar is in my possession - since last 10 to 12 years, Sajjan Kumar is out of village in service but he keeps on coming off and on. It is wrong that 10 years back, I raised a compound and encroached on the suit land. On the contrary, the suit land is in my possession right from the beginning After filing of this suit, it came to my knowledge that I am in possession of two biswas of land of Survey No. 453. Before filing of this suit, Patwari and others had come to the land for measurement and they told me that on land in Survey No. 453, your possession has been found. Then I told them that I am in possession since beginning."

9. In the above part of the deposition, the defendant admits t