The court confirmed that adverse possession can secure title even against invalid transfer documents, provided uninterrupted possession exceeds 12 years and is public, emphasizing the significance of continuous occupation.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.12.1997 (Decree signed on 20.01.1998) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Appeal No.15/1995 and the Judgment and Decree dated 30.05.1995 (Decree signed on 16.06.1995) passed by the learned Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Suit No.47/1992. The defendants are the appellants before this Court.

2. The original plaintiff namely, Ratan Lal Jain had filed the title suit seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession over schedule B land shown in red colour on the map attached with the plaint and also a decree for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over Schedule-A land or any portion thereof and barring encroachment over Schedule 'B' land.

3. The Schedule-A and Schedule-B of the plaint are as under:

Schedule-A

As described by letter ‘A’ on the map

Boundary of both the lands measuring an area of 0.21 acres is as follows:-

North- Road, South- Gobardhan Tiwary, now Ratan Dey, East- Ghishalal, West-Road

Schedule-B

Lands measuring an area of 104 sq. ft., out of 0.10 acres, which lies within Item No.-I described in Schedule-A referred above shown on the map in red colour described by letter D E F G H I J and butted and bounded as North: Road, South: Own land, East: Own Land, West: Own Land in Village- Saram (Hosir), Police Station- Gomia, District- Hazaribagh now Bokaro.

4. The learned trial court decreed the suit on contest in part and declared the title and long continuous possession of the plaintiff upon item no.1 of schedule A property [which included schedule B property] and directed the defendants to vacate the suit property described in Schedule-B.

5. As per the records, the entire plot No.3767 was recorded in the name of Madhu Keot who had three sons, namely, Meghlal Keot (died issueless), Sheo Dayal Keot and Lakhman Keot. All the defendants were descendants of Madhu Keot.

6. The 1^st appeal was filed by Defendant Nos. 4, 9, 10, 11 and 12 [ that is, Chotan Keot son of Lakhman Keot (full brother of Meghlal Keot) and four sons of Chotan Keot]. The sons of 2^nd son of Lakhman Keot (Hazari Keot) remained proforma defendants and they were Ram Prasad Keot, Ram Lal Keot, Mohan Keot and Cheto Keot all sons of Hazari Keot. Ram Prasad Keot died during the pendency of the trial and he was substituted by his legal heirs namely, Panwa Devi (his widow), Sunil Keot (minor son) and two minor daughters, Shevitri Kumari and Muni Kumari. Sheo Dayal Keot had two sons Banwari and Kartik . Defendant no.1, Gurmail Keot was son of Banwari; defendant no.2 , Ramdeo Keot was son of Gurmail Keot; and defendant no.3, Shyam Lal was son of Kartik Keot , but they did not file any appeal.

7. The 1^st appeal was filed by one son of Lakshman Keot and his children. No appeal was filed by Sons of Hazari Keot , the 2^nd son of Lakshman Keot. Further no appeal was filed by the branch of Sheo Dayal Keot.

8. The learned 1^st appellate court reversed the findings of the learned trial court with respect to the title over the suit property schedule B. The learned 1^st appellate court held that the finding of the learned trial court that the sale deed executed by Meghlal Keot in favour of the