Adverse possession claims require acknowledgment of the original owner's title; mere long-term possession without proof of acknowledgment negates the claim.

JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.

1. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2002 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 68-A/2002 by which first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2000 passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Class-II, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No. 17-A/1993 by which the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed.

2. The parties have been described as per their description before the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 17-A/1993.

3. The second appeal has been admitted by this Court on 13.09.2018 on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession in the suit for ejectment filed by the appellants/plaintiffs?

2. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the suit after having held that plaintiffs are the owner of the suit land by recording a perverse finding and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court?”

4. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that:

(a) The plaintiffs have filed a suit on 12.04.1993 for vacant possession of property bearing Plot No. 10 admeasuring area about 6958 sq. ft. Nazul sheet No. 116 situated at Kumharpara Ward Jagdalpur wherein in one portion a house has been constructed and other part of the plot is lying vacant, (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”). The plaintiff has also claimed remaining rent from November 1989 to November 1992 mainly contending that Smt. Tikabai was the wife of Chandulal Sao and plaintiffs No. 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of the plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff No. 1 along with her sons and daughters were in possession of the suit property.

(b) The plaintiff’s husband Chandulal Sao has given the said house to the defendant on rent in the year 1981 at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month and since then there was a landlord and tenant relationship between Chandulal Sao and the defendant, Chandulal expired in the year 1984, accordingly, the plaintiff No. 1 has become the owner of the suit property. The tenancy was effective from the 1st day of month till the last day. The defendant paid from the year 1981 till 1989, thereafter, he stopped paying the rent. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs moved an application for mutation of their names in the revenue records on 28.02.1986. In the said proceedings, the defendant has raised objection and since then they stopped paying rent. The plaintiffs have claimed vacant possession of the house as she has bonafide need of the house and also on account of failure of the defendant to pay rent for the last 3 years. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that their names have been mutated in the revenue records against that the defendant has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Bastar Division which has been rejected by the appellate Court.

5. The defendant filed his written statement as well as counter claim mainly contending that:

(a) The suit property is not in possession of the plaintiff’s husband, therefore, no question of landlord and tenant relationship exists between them, as such, plaintiff’s husband cannot give the suit property on rent to the defendant. It has also been contended that despite decision of the revenue Court, they have not acquired any right and the sale deed executed in favour of the Chandulal Sao by Jhariyar Gond is null and void as the suit property was never recorded in the nam