Adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of continuous, open, and hostile possession against the true owner's title, validly pleaded and established.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. Present second appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”) is filed challenging judgment and decree dated 14.7.2025 passed by the learned 4^th Additional District Judge, Dharampur in Regular Civil Appeal No.86 of 2000 (Old No.35 of 2016), whereby the learned appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.7.2016 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Dharampur in Regular Civil Suit No.28 of 2009.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties are referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction that she be declared as owner of land bearing survey No.470 admeasuring 1-78-06 hectare-are-sq mtr situated at village Bhambha, Tal: Dharampur on the averment that the suit land is running in name of the defendants and out of which, land admeasuring 1 acre 10 guntha (in short “suit land”) is in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has constructed compound wall on the suit land and also constructed residential house, which she possesses since more than 25 years.

3.1 That father of the defendants contracted second marriage with a lady, who came along with angaliyat son Ukhedbhai. Later on, father of the defendants contracted marriage of Ukhedbhai with the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff was kept as daughter-in-law by the father of the defendants and further, she has been given the suit land so as to avoid future dispute, in presence of heads of the society, on the basis that she is owner of the suit land and was permitted to construct house.

3.2 The plaintiff further pleaded that on 19.11.1986, in presence of heads of village, she had been handed over the possession of the suit land on the basis that she is now owner of that parcel of the land and said fact was reduced in writing. According to the plaintiff, since then she is in continuous possession of the suit land.

3.3 Since the defendants tried to take back the possession of the suit land from the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.56 of 1997 seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking back possession of the suit land.

3.4 Thereafter, second suit was filed by the plaintiff to declare that she is the owner of the suit land on the basis of the adverse possession as she is continued in possession of the suit land since last more than 25 years.

3.5 On being served, the defendants appeared and denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. It is further contended by the defendants that the the plaintiff also initiated proceedings under the Tenancy Act to declare her as tenant of the suit land, which is also dismissed. At no point of time, she is found to be in possession of the suit land nor she is found to be a title holder of the suit land. Civil Suit No.56 of 1997 filed by the plaintiff is also dismissed. In view of that, the present suit has no legs to stand and therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.

3.6 The learned trial Court after framing the issues, was pleased to dismiss the suit.

3.7 Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the appeal before the learned appellate Court, which was also dismissed.

3.8 Hence, plaintiff filed present second appeal raising following questions of law as substantial questions of law:-

“5.1. Whether the Appellant herein can be said to be in adverse possession of the disputed property?

5.2. Whether the Appellant herein can be dispossessed from the property wi