IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious, and hostile possession for adverse possession to be claimed, and the inconsistency between pleas based on title and adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) :

1. The present First Appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 07/10/2017 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge Kunkuri, District Jashpur in Civil Suit No. 08-A/2012.

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

2. Facts of the case are that, father and real uncle of Plaintiff no. 1, namely Late Bhojram and Balram, after considering the request as made by their Sister's husband i.e. Kashiram, in the year 1958 handed over the disputed property to Kashiram by constructing a "Kuchha Makhan" over the disputed property. Kashiram after obtaining the possession of the disputed property, as per their requirement constructed further Kuchha makhan and lived their upto 1965 with his family and then handed over the vacant possession of constructed house and varandah to late Bhojraj and Balram and left the disputed property. In the year 1966, disputed property i.e. house was given to Defendant no. 1, as he made special request for having a stay in the disputed property, till his house got constructed, defendant no.1, being Wife's brother of late Bhojram @ Bhojnath, on account of close relations with Bhojram, got the possession of disputed property without any consideration and in fact without any written agreement. In the year 2009-10, Plaintiffs after considering the requirement of their family members and after knowing that, house of defendant no. 1 got ready, made a demand to defendant no.1 to vacate the disputed property and to shift to his house but defendant no.1, did not pay any heed to it and did not vacate the premises. Plaintiffs after seeing the adamant attitude of defendant no.1, got a demarcation and in which possession over the disputed property was found of defendant no. 1.

3. It is further averred by Plaintiffs that since on the disputed property house was constructed without getting it diverted and therefore on the report of Patwari, Revenue Case no. 4/A-2/77-78 got registered in the court of SDM, Dramjaigarh and in which by virtue of order dated 27/02/1997, father of Plaintiff no. 1, i.e. late Bhojram was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 15/- and also fixed Revenue at the rate of Rs. 14.56/- and directed to deposit the entire fine from 1959-60 to 1977-78, and since defendant no. 1, was the occupant of that house and therefore, matter was registered against defendant no.1, and since defendant no.1 was actually residing in the disputed property since 1966 and therefore, with the consent of Plaintiffs, electricity connection was taken by him in his name and bills with regard to gram Panchayat were also paid by defendant no.1. It is further averred that, neither late Bhojram @ Bhojnath nor Balram had executed any written agreement for sale of disputed property with defendant no.1 and if any document is being produced by defendants then it should be false, fabricated and forged one and would not give any valid title or right in favour of defendant no.1. In January, 2012, defendant no.2, i.e. Ramesh Sharma @ Rammu Sharma started storing bricks and sand near the disputed property and plaintiffs being aggrieved with storage of building material by defendant no.2, asked defendant no.2 to stop all such storage but defendant no.2, apprised them that he is going to purchase part of disputed property from defendant no.1 and in fact had given earnest money for purchasing the property and therefore he is storing the building material near disputed property, after knowing this fact, Plaintiffs made a written report before the Police officials of Patthalgaon on 21/02/2012, but their complaint was not entertained by the police officials, thereafter plaintiffs called a meeting on 14/02/2012 and 18/02/2012 but defendant no.2, made a boycott of that meeting and in fact left the meeting without taking any decision and therefore Plaintiffs left with no alternate excep