The judgment emphasizes the importance of continuous possession and the lack of evidence to support adverse possession in property disputes.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellant-defendant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.1.2017 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Bayana Camp Roopwas in appeal No. (20/2016) (7/2007) 1/2017, affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Roopwas in civil suit No.78/1999 whereby civil suit for possession and permanent injunction filed by respondent- plaintiff has been decreed in his favour and against appellant- defendant on merits.

2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the impugned judgments and record as a whole.

3. The relevant facts as culled out from the record are that the dispute between parties is in relation to a plot measuring 56X65 feet situated in Village Panduri, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur. Plaintiff instituted civil suit for possession on 23.10.1999 stating that the aforesaid plot was belonging to his predecessors namely Chhidi Lal and he was having his actual continuous and physical possession over this plot. It was stated that his predecessor Chhidi Lal obtained permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat on 17.10.1965 and thereafter, constructed a pakka room and thatched covered portion. His personal will is also situated in the plot. It is stated that plaintiff, due to his business purpose went out of village and behind his back, defendant has entered into and take over the possession of his property. When plaintiff returned back to his village on 20.9.1998, he asked defendant to return the possession of his property but he denied, therefore, the present suit has been instituted.

4. Defendant has submitted his written statement denying the case of plaintiff and stated that defendant is in possession of the suit property which was received to him from one Sh. Angad Singh to whom defendant went in adoption. Plaintiff's suit is beyond limitation and plaintiff has not valued the suit properly. Further it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

5. The trial Court after settlement of issues, recorded evidence of both parties. As per evidence on record, the trial Court while deciding issues No.1 and 3 observed that plaintiff and his witnesses Pw.1, Pw.2 and Pw.3 have deposed evidence that plaintiff since time of his predecessor namely Chhidi Lal was in actual and physical possession over the suit property. Plaintiff produced document Ex.5 to show that Gram Panchayat, Chekora granted the permission to raise construction to plaintiff's predecessor Chhidi Lal on 17.10.1965 (Ex.4). It was observed by the trial Court that at that point of time one neighbour namely Nekiram raised some objection, however, after settlement between both parties, (Ex.5) the Gram Panchayat accorded permission to plaintiff's predecessor for raising construction. It was also observed that on the permission Ex.4, Mr. Angad Singh has put his signature. Defendant is claiming his possession over the suit plot through Angad Singh. The trial Court observed that defendant has not produced any evidence in rebuttal to plaintiff's evidence to show his old and established possession. Statements of Dw.1, Dw.2, Dw.3, Dw.4 and Dw.5 were considered and on the basis of having previous possession over the suit plot of predecessors of plaintiff, the suit was decreed against defendant. It may be noticed here that defendant has not taken any plea of having adverse possession over the suit plot for more than 12 years. Thus, on comparative examination of respective evidence of both parties, the trial Court finally decreed plaintiff's suit vide judgment dated 19.1.2007.

6. Appellant-defendant challenged the judgment and decree for possession dated by filing first appeal, the first Appellate Court re- appreciated and re-considered the entire evidence on record. The first Appellate Court observed that document of permission dated 27.10.1965 (Ex.4) and settlement dated 17.10.1965 (Ex.5) are more than 3