The main legal point established is that adverse possession requires adequacy, continuity, and exclusiveness of possession, and the possession must be hostile and in denial of the true owner's title. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of these elements in determining adverse possession claims.

Viney Mittal, J.

1. The defendant is in first appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present controversy may be noticed. The plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs of one Sukhram (brother of defendant Ganpat), filed a suit for possession of a house at Ujjain, claiming-themselves to be the owners thereof. The aforesaid suit was filed on February 17, 1992. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that the house in question was originally owned by Panchamji, their grandfather (father of Sukhram and Ganpat), who according to the plaintiffs had died on February 16, 1983 (the said date of death of Panchamji was disputed by the defendant, who claim that Panchamji had died on March 2, 1977).

3. According to the plaintiffs, Panchamji had left behind a Will dated January 14, 1977, bequeathing the said house to Sukhram as exclusive owner. After the death of Sukhram, the house in question had been succeeded by the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that the defendant had been living in the said house with the consent of Sukhram, being his real brother but had absolutely no legal right to retain the possession of the house. It was further pleaded by the plaintiffs that earlier a suit was filed with regard to the house in question, by defendant-Ganpat, claiming a declaration and ownership of the said house. However, on setting up a Will of Panchamji, dated January 14, 1977, by Sukhram and the present plaintiffs, the said suit was dismissed on August 25, 1990. Consequently, the plaintiffs claimed the possession of the suit property.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant. Although he admitted that the house in question was originally owned by Panchamji, his father, but he denied the execution of the Will dated January 14,1997 by Panchamji, in favour of Sukhram. He also claimed that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation. A plea was also set up by him to the effect that he had become the owner of the said house, by way of adverse possession.

5. The Trial Court framed the necessary issues, arising out of the pleadings of the parties, such as, with regard to the execution of the Will by Panchamji, in favour of Sukhram; whether the suit had been filed within limitation; whether the defendant Ganpat had acquired the ownership of the suit property, by way of adverse possession.

6. Through the judgment and decree dated November 16, 2000, the suit filed by the plaintiffs, has been decreed by the Trial Court. It has been held that as per the earlier litigation between the parties, the due execution of the Will by Panchamji in favour of Sukhram had been upheld by the Trial Court and the said judgment of the Trial Court had been upheld in first appeal as well as the second appeal. It has also been held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not barred by limitation. With regard to the plea raised by the defendant that he had matured his title, by way of adverse possession, the Trial Court has held that the hostile possession set up by the defendant had not matured into a title, as yet.

7. It is in these circumstances, that the defendant has chosen to file the present first appeal.

8. I have heard Shri M.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent-appellant and Shri S.K. Shastri, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondents, and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.

9. At the commencement of the arguments, Shri M.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant has argued that while filing a suit on February 17, 1992, the plaintiffs had given a wrong date of death of Panchamji, when it had been stated that he had died on February 16, 1983, whereas, in fact, the death certificate produced by the defendant clearly indicated that Panchamji had died on March 2, 1977. According to the learned Counsel, if Panchamji is taken to have died on March 2, 1977, as proved, then obviously, the suit filed by the plaintiffs on February 17, 1992, was clearly barred by limitation.

10. The learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant has v