The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear evidence to prove adverse possession and the need to establish ownership based on valid documents.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. The instant appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2018 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No.40A/2011. The suit was filed by Smt. Hemlata Bhutada, the respondent/plaintiff herein claiming possession, declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the house bearing No.134, admeasuring 17,600 sq.ft. situated at Ward No.1, Gobra Navapara, Rajim, District Raipur. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, hence this appeal by the defendants.

2. As per the plaint averments, Smt. Shakuntala claimed to be the exclusive owner of the suit property i.e. house No.134 admeasuring 17,600 sq.ft. which was bequeathed to her by her inlaws Banshilal, resident of Jodhpur by a registered WILL dated 13.01.1966, which was registered on 14.01.1966. It was stated that late Banshilal, during his lifetime, filed a suit against one late Sharda Prasad Mishra, who is father of Deepak Kumar Mishra (the appellant) bearing No.5A/1959 for possession and damages wherein the Civil Court decreed the suit on 14.03.1959 and directed that the possession of the suit premises be handed over to the then late Banshilal Gattani, who is father-in-law of plaintiff. It was further stated that the said order of ejectment was affirmed in the first appeal as also in the second appeal. According to the plaintiff, late Banshilal Gattani acquired the possession of such suit premises, which is the same in this civil suit except the room No.3 & 4 and the rest of the possession was acquired on 30.09.1963. During the passage of time, the room No.3 & 4 which was in dilapidated condition got automatically demolished and during such period Banshilal died. It is further stated the husband of the plaintiff Shakuntala namely Mulchand Gattani was not financially well, as such, he did not come to Gobra Navapara Rajim from Jodhpur. Subsequently, in the year 1982, the room No.3 & 4 was completely demolished and only debris were existing, they removed them and took possession in entirety and thereafter the boundary wall was constructed to save the property.

3. It is further pleaded that on 01.05.2003, the husband of the plaintiff Mulchand died and she could not come to Gobra Navapara and in 2007 some known person to her was sent to Navapara to enquire about property then she came to know that defendant No.1, the appellant Deepak Kumar Mishra have took over the possession of said premises and got his name mutated over the land and was further trying to sell out. It was further revealed that some part of the land more than around 5000 sq.ft. was sold to Smt. Meena Bai, who is defendant/appellant No.2. It was stated that by such sale and unauthorized occupation, the defendant do not get any right and title over the property; therefore, the suit was filed for declaration and for possession and permanent injunction.

4. Per contra, the defendant/appellant No.1 contended that the house belong to his father and after his death, the land was recorded in name of Shyamvati and on 12.12.1996 Shyamvati died. Consequent thereto, the disputed land/property was recorded in name of defendant No.1, the appellant herein. The map which was attached with the plaint was disowned and denial was of the fact that the possession of the house was taken over by the Banshilal Gattani at any point of time. It was stated that the name of mother of the defendant No.1/appellant Deepak Kumar Mishra, Shyamvati was recorded in the Municipal records and after her death, the defendant No.1 Deepak Kumar Mishra is in possession of the said house. It was further stated that on the southern part of the property, another part of land 1275 sq.ft. was purchased by the defendant No.1 by a registered sale deed dated 13.05.1981 and it was included into the house which is in possession of defendant. It was stated in respect of the land admeasuring 13068 sq.ft., which was part of Khasra No.641/3, the defendant was granted a lease of the land. Further it w