A proper re-evaluation of evidence by appellate courts is essential, particularly regarding encroachment claims and the burden of proof for adverse possession, as emphasized under Section 100 CPC.

ORDER :

J.C.DOSHI, J.

1. The present Second Appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”), assailing the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2025 rendered by the learned Principal District Judge, Valsad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2020, whereby the learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree dated 28.12.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid prolixity, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to in accordance with their original status before the learned Trial Court.

BRIEF FACTS:-

3. The respondents herein (original plaintiffs) instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 27 of 2014 before the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Valsad, asserting that they had purchased the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 198 (New Survey No. 117) by a registered sale deed dated 02.06.2001 from the original owners and had since remained in possession and enjoyment thereof while regularly paying government dues. It was their case that the land adjoining the suit land on the southern side, being Survey No. 199 (New Survey No. 119), belonged to the original defendants. According to the plaintiffs, disputes arose when the defendants, allegedly aggrieved by not having been able to purchase the suit land themselves, began interfering with the boundary and repeatedly altered boundary marks.

3.1. The plaintiffs further averred that upon their application, the District Inspector of Land Records (DILR), Valsad, carried out measurement on 09.03.2005, which allegedly revealed that the defendants had encroached upon 827 sq. meters of the suit land. Despite repeated demands, the defendants allegedly failed to remove the encroachment and instead filed caveats and raised objections regarding the measurement. The plaintiffs also alleged incidents of threats and intimidation in January 2014. On these assertions, they sought removal of the alleged encroachment and protection of their possession.

3.2. The original defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement contending that the plaintiffs had no lawful possession and that the disputed portion in fact fell to their share in a long-standing family arrangement. They asserted continuous, open, and settled possession over the land for several decades, relied upon the existence of old mango trees and a panchanama to support their claim, and disputed the correctness of the DILR measurement. They also raised a plea of limitation. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the trial court, by judgment dated 28.12.2017, dismissed the suit holding that encroachment was not proved and that the suit was barred by limitation. In appeal, the learned Principal District Judge, Valsad, by judgment dated 24.09.2025, allowed Regular Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2020 and reversed the trial court’s decree, which has given rise to the present second appeal.

4. The present Second Appeal has been instituted by canvassing the following substantial questions of law, which are asserted to arise for consideration within the narrow compass of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code:-

“1. Whether the judgment & decree passed by the Ld. First Appellate Court is vitiated by not framing and deciding appropriate point for determination as required under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

2. Whether the Ld. First Appellate Court has committed patent error in reading, evaluating and considered the effect of contents of documents and admission in evidence recorded durin