The concept of adverse possession and its implications on property ownership, emphasizing the need to prove peaceful, open, and continuous possession and establish the origin of title over the property.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The appellant is the plaintiff, who after having lost before both the learned Courts below have filed the instant Regular Second Appeal.

The parties shall be referred to as the ''plaintiff and the ''defendant''.

2. Brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff claimed to be owner of land bearing Khasra No. 74/17 measuring 1-6 bighas out of which he had exchanged 8 biswas of land with Chet Ram and therefore was in possession of 18 biswas of land. It was averred that the defendant alleged to have purchased two biswas of land of khasra No. 135/77 in the year 1985 and having raised construction on it and also on the land of the plaintiff to the extent of 4 biswas by encroaching over it during the life time of Palkia predecessor of the plaintiff. It was averred that the defendant agreed to give his land in exchange but failed to fulfill the promise. It was further averred that the plaintiff also obtained demarcation which had shown encroachment of 4 biswas of land and therefore, he filed a suit for possession.

3. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff by alleging that Khasra No. 74/17 did not exist in the revenue record as out of this khasra number which was measuring 3.7 bighas, the land measuring 1.19 bighas was acquired by the State Government and remaining land measuring 1.8 bighas was divided into three khasra numbers, 17/2 measuring 9 biswas, 17/4 measuring 15 biswas, 17/3 measuring 4 biswas, out of which Jankia Ram purchased two biswas denoted by Khasra No. 17/2/1 vide mutation No. 34 which was purchased by the defendant in December, 1982, through an oral agreement, the sale deed of which was effected in 1984. The defendant denied factum of exchange of land by the plaintiff with Chet Ram and claimed to be in possession of the suit land from the time of his predecessor since 1973 and having become its owner by adverse possession and in the alternative he offered to pay Rs.1000/- per biswa for the land.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court on 29.3.1996, framed the following issues:

1. Whether the defendant has encroached upon 4 biswas of plaintiff''s land? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD

4. Whether the defendant has become owner by way of adverse possession ?OPD

5. Relief.

5. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, constraining the plaintiff to file an appeal before the first appellate Court. The said appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 18.8.2003 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set-aside and after recasting issue No.1, the case was remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence afresh on issue No.1 as recast by the Court, which reads as under:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land as claimed and the defendant has encroached upon the land of the plaintiff, if so to what extent?"

6. However, this judgment was challenged before this Court and vide order dated 15.3.2003 the order passed by the first Appellate Court ordering the wholesale remand was set-aside with a direction to the first Appellate Court to call for the report from the trial Court on the recast issue.

7. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 30.9.2005 returned the findings on recast issue No.1 against the plaintiff and submitted the findings to the Court. Thereafter, the first appellate Court again dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 21.6.2006 constraining the plaintiff to file the present appeal.

8. On 30.5.2007, the appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the learned District Judge has failed to consider statement of PW-11 Bishambar Nath, Naib Tehsildar and demarcation report Ex.PW-11/L therefore findings are liable to be set-aside?

2. Whet