A claim of adverse possession requires foundational pleading; courts cannot consider arguments raised outside of established pleadings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2018 (Decree signed on 26.06.2018) passed by the learned District Judge-III, Chatra in Civil Appeal No.08 of 2012 whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court has been set aside. The judgment and decree dated 29.02.2012 (Decree signed on 14.03.2012) was passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-II, Chatra in Title Suit No.03 of 2001 whereby the suit was allowed and decreed on contest.

3. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 23.07.2024 and the following substantial questions of law were framed:

(i) Whether both the courts below have committed perversity in declaring the title of the plaintiffs by way of adverse possession against the State of Jharkhand, even though the essential ingredients to establish their title by way of adverse possession, was neither pleaded nor proved, by the plaintiffs?

(ii) Whether both the courts below have committed perversity by failing to consider that in the year 1942, no ward of Encumbered Estate was in existence as the same ended in the year 1937 and Padma Estate was under direct control of Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh therefore, the case of the plaintiffs of settlement by sada hukumnama dated 07.11.1942 was a concocted one?

4. With respect to the substantial question no. (i), it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf appellants that there was no foundational pleading with respect to adverse possession and it was only in the relief portion of the plaint, the plaintiffs had claimed adverse possession. He placed the entire plaint before this Court and has submitted that in absence of any plea regarding foundational fact of adverse possession, neither any prayer could have been made in the plaint, nor any issue could have been framed and accordingly, there is no occasion for the Court to go into the point of adverse possession.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that although issues were framed in connection with the adverse possession, but none of the Courts gave any finding relating to adverse possession. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed the plaint, but he has not been able to show any foundational pleading on behalf of the plaintiffs with regard to their claim, if any, of adverse possession. However, it is not in dispute that in the prayer portion, a relief was made seeking the decree inter alia on account of adverse possession.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the plaintiffs were claiming the property on the basis of Hukumnama duly executed which was followed by issuance of rent receipts and their claim was essentially based on title. Learned counsel has submitted that the case of the plaintiffs was based on factum of issuance of Hukumnama coupled with delivery of possession and grant of rent receipts and it is not in dispute that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. He submitted that it is further not in dispute that the plaintiffs are still in possession of the suit land. Learned counsel has also submitted that both the Courts have not recorded any finding in connection with adverse possession, much less any finding on the aforesaid issue in favour of the plaintiffs.

First substantial question of law

7. After hearing