The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession must be proven with evidence of legal possession and hostile title over the disputed land.

U.C. Maheshwari, J.

1. The appellant/plaintiff has directed this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2008 passed by IVth Additional District Judge Rewa, in regular civil appeal No. 78-A/07 upholding the judgment and decree dated 30.4.07 passed by the IVth Civil Judge Class-II, Rewa in Civil Original suit No. 172-A/2006, dismissing his suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed against the respondent with respect of the revenue land bearing Survey No. 553 area 24 dismil situated in village Chhijwar recorded in the name of respondent/State in the revenue record.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellant herein filed the above mentioned suit against the respondent contending that some partition took place between his fore-father and fore-father of Ram Prasad. In such partition, besides the. other land, the aforesaid land bearing S.N.553 areas 24 dismil (old No. 446) was given in the share of his fore-father. As per further averments after abolition of Pavaidar rights vide dated 1.7.1954, such land was remained in cultivation of the appellant and on coming into force the M.P. Land revenue Code in 1959, by virtue of section 158 of the same, he has become the Bhumi Swami of such land but inspite giving notice to the respondent, his name was not recorded as Bhumi Swami in the record of rights, on which, he has filed the impugned civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction with respect of such land.

3. On behalf of the respondent, inspite the service of the notice neither appearance was given nor any written statement was filed, ton which, an ex-parte evidence of the appellant was recorded in the matter. On appreciation of such evidence, the trial court after holding that mere on the basis of entries in the remark column of Khasra showing the possession of the appellant over the disputed land, being made the same without any order of the competent revenue officer, it could not be inferred that the appellant has perfected any right or title of Bhumi Swami over such land, dismissed the suit.

4. On challenging such judgment and decree of the trial court before the appellate court, on consideration, by affirming the same, the appeal has been dismissed, on which, the appellant has come forward to this court with this appeal.

5. Shri Himanshu Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, after taking me through the pleadings of the plaint, evidence available on records and the exhibited papers, the khasra entries from Ex.P/3 to Ex.P/13 in which in the remark column possession of appellant is mentioned, argued that such material aspects have not been taken into consideration by the courts below with proper approach and his suit had been dismissed under wrong premises. According to him, he is coming in possession of the disputed land from the time of his fore-fathers and thereby he has perfected the title on it by adverse' possession under the provision of the Limitation Act on completing the period of thirty years in possession of such land but both the courts have not examined the matter with this approach and, prayed for admission of this appeal on the proposed substantial questions of law mentioned in para 9(a) to 9(c) of the appeal memo.

6. Having heard the counsel I have carefully gone through the record of the courts below and also perused the impugned judgments. It is undisputed fact on record that the disputed land was ever recorded in the name of State of M.P. and I have not found any document showing that at any point of time the disputed land was recorded in the name of the appellant or his forefathers. Besides this, no others document is available on the records showing that at any point of time the possession of the land was given to the appellant or his fore-fathers by any Pavaidar or any other competent authority. The entire argument of the appellant was based on Exhibit P/3 to P/13 the khasra of the disputed land from the year be