Adverse possession must be proved to the satisfaction of the court, and a suit for possession cannot be dismissed on the ground of Order II Rule 2 CPC as long as the trespasser remains in possession and the title of the owner is not lost by pleading and proving adverse possession.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendants in the suit, impugning the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 29.11.2012 and the First Appellate Court dated 29.2.2016; by which the courts below have decreed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for possession of plot no.5, Village Chhatarpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi along with the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month from 1.10.1996 till vacation of the suit property. The courts below have held that the respondents/plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property having in their favour a ‘Sanad’ executed by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, and pursuant to which possession of the suit property was delivered by execution of the eviction warrants on 26.9.1970. Eviction warrants were executed against the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant/defendant no.3 namely Sh. Mange Ram. After execution of possession warrants, Sh. Mange Ram again trespassed into the suit property. Appellant/defendant no.3 and the other defendants in the suit are the sons and grandsons of Sh. Mange Ram. The courts below besides holding the respondents/plaintiffs to be owners of the suit property have rejected the case of the appellant/defendant no.3 that defendants have become owners by adverse possession of the suit property. The original defendant in the suit was Sh. Mange Ram who died during the pendency of the suit and thereafter he was substituted by his legal heirs including the appellant, being the defendant no.3 in the suit. It may be noted that even the original plaintiff in the suit Sh. Satdev Singh also expired pendente lite and he was substituted by his legal heirs, and who are now the respondents in the present second appeal.

2. Trial court on 16.08.1999 framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land? OPP

2. Whether the suit property has not been properly described and is not identifiable? If so, its effect? OPDs

3. Whether this suit is barred U/o 23 R 1 CPC read with order 2 CPC? OPDs

4. Whether this suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? If so, its effect? OPDs

5. Whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit? OPDs

6. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPDs

7. Whether the defendants are in possession of the suit property for the last more than 50 years? If so, the effect? OPDs

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession against the defendants? OPP

9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits from the defendants? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP

10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest on mesne profits? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP

11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory and permanent injunction as sought? OPP

12. Relief.”

3. Since there are concurrent and detailed judgments of the courts below, appreciating the pleadings and evidence of the parties for arriving at the conclusions, this Court would have limited powers to interfere with the concurrent judgments of the courts below, and that this Court can only interfere if appellant/defendant no.3 is found to have raised substantial questions of law. No substantial questions of law arise , and therefore, this appeal is liable and accordingly dismissed for the reasons given hereinafter. It is also noted that all the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant no.3 are in fact as if this Court is the trial court or the first appellate court, because before this Court the arguments of the appellant effectively are that the conclusions arrived at by the courts below as per the appreciation of the evidence on record are illegal. This Court by exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC can entertain a second appeal only in case the findings and conclusions of the courts below result in