JUDGMENT

Ram Prasanna Sharma, J. - This first appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against judgment/ decree dated 17.05.2003 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Baloda-Bazar, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 1A/1997, wherein the said court decreed the suit filed by respondent No. 1 & 2 partially and declared them owner of the land bearing Survey No. 229 situated at Village- Avrethi to the extent on which one boundary wall is constructed by them and for restraining the appellant from interfering in possession of the land in limited area.

2. The respondents filed a suit contending that they are owner by adverse possession of land bearing Survey No. 229 situated at Village- Avrethi, Patwari Halka No. 7/24 area admeasuring 3 acres. The total area of Survey No. 229 is 2.533 Hectare as per Ex. D/1. The land was given to Krishi Upaj Mandi by publication in Madhya Pradesh Gazette. As per the appellant, the respondents encroached in some part of the land. For removal of which, notices were sent on 01.02.1982 and on subsequent dates, therefore, finding arrived at by the trial court that respondents were in peaceful possession of the land is contrary to factual matrix and legal aspect of the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:-

(i) As per Ex. P/5, case for removal of encroachment is initiated in the year 1965. Again, notices were served on 18.04.1963, 23.04.1963 & 22.11.1982, therefore, possession of the said respondents was interrupted and they have not acquired any title by adverse possession.

(ii) As peaceful possession for 30 years in the Government land, is not established, the finding of the trial court is not liable to be sustained.

(iii) The trial court has passed unexecutable decree because area for which decree is granted, is not ascertainable. When the said respondents are not owner of the property, injunction cannot be granted in their favour, therefore, the finding arrived at by the trial court is liable to be reversed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the finding arrived at by the trial court is based on proper marshaling of evidence and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court with invoking jurisdiction of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record in which judgment and decree has been passed.

6. The respondents side adduced evidence of Fattechand (PW-1), Surya Prasad Mishra (PW-2), Prabhulal Sharma (PW-3), Shiv Prasad Tiwari (PW-4) & Chhedilal (PW-5) and produced document Ex. P/1 to P/6. As against this, the appellant side adduced evidence of Jivan Lal (DW-1), Phaguaram (DW-2) & Gosai Ram Yadu, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bhatapara (DW-3) and produced document Ex. D/1 & D/2 which is record of right & Khasra entry respectively. It is clear that the land bearing Survey No. 229/1 area admeasuring 2.533 Hectare is property of the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bhatapara. The khasra entry (DW-2) shows possession of the Krishi Upaj Mandi for year 1988-89. The respondent side is also not claiming title by any document over the property, but they are saying that they are in possession of the property since 1950-52. They are claiming over the property on the basis of adverse possession.

7. As the property in question is property of the appellant as per record, the only question for consideration before this Court is whether the respondents acquired the title over the property on the basis of adverse possession. In the matter of Chatti Konati Rao & others Vs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316 , Hon'ble the Apex Court held as under:-

(i) It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is peaceful, open and continuous.

(ii) The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner.

(iii) It must start with a wrongful