1. The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this defendant No.1's second appeal state as under: -

(1) Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the decree of the Court of first instance on the ground that the plaintiff had prescribed title by adverse possession?

(2) Whether the first appellate Court was right in holding that the certified copy of the sale deed Ex.D.5 was inadmissible in evidence?

(For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court.)

2. The original plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein instituted an action against defendant No.1 (appellant herein) and defendant No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) before the trial Court seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiff be declared as Bhumi Swami of suit land bearing Khasra No. 107/1, area 0.324 hectare, situated at Village Ludeg, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh stating inter alia that originally the suit land was known as “Narihai land” meaning thereby that village servant used to enjoy this land during his tenure. The State Government vide Patta dated 20-3-1957 allotted the suit land to the Narihar community. After the grant of Patta, Smt. Damayanti – defendant No.2, wife of the then 'Gotiya' Vidyadhar, purchased the land in dispute from one Jhera who was also 'Narihar', vide registered sale deed dated 27-12-1962. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.2 sold 101.32 acres out of 2.12 acres of land of Khasra No. 107/1 to the appellant herein/defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiff set out in the plaint that the ancestors of the plaintiff are settled, undisputed and continuous possession of the suit land for last 40 years and as such, they have perfected their adverse possession into the title and therefore the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration of title in his favour.

3. Defendant No.1/appellant herein denied the plaint allegations stating inter alia that he has purchased the land in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 17-1-1966 (Ex.D-5) from defendant No.2 for a valuable consideration and since then he is in possession of the suit land.

4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record held that the plaintiff is not in possession over the suit land from the time of his ancestors, the land in dispute belongs to defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 vide Ex.D-5 dated 17-1-1966 transferred the land in favour of defendant No.1 and also held the suit to be barred by limitation and thereby dismissed the suit.

5. On first appeal being preferred by the plaintiff, the said first appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession and the sale deed Ex.D-5 was also inadmissible in evidence. Questioning that judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, this second appeal has been preferred in which the substantial questions of law formulated for consideration and which have been cataloged in the opening paragraph of the judgment.

6. Miss Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1, would submit that the finding recorded by the first appellate Court that the plaintiff has perfected his title on the suit land on the basis of adverse possession, is grossly perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record, as the suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another (2014) 1 SCC 669. She would further submit that even otherwise, the plaintiff has failed to prove perfection of his title by way of adverse possession, as the necessary ingredients for granting decree based on adverse possession is absolutely missing in th