Failure to establish the basic ingredients of adverse possession led to the rejection of the claim for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

1. This Second appeal under Section 100 of CPC assails the concurrent findings of two courts below whereby the suit filed for declaratory decree of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit property against the defendants has been rejected.

2. The arguments of learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission and the record of both the courts below is perused.

3. The plaintiff claimed the declaratory decree of title and permanent injunction on the basis of adverse possession of the suit land since 1957 when the plaintiff claimed that his father purchased the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 350/in regard of which no registered document is available except for receipt of the said consideration and a deed of conveyance recorded on a plain paper which is not registered . The trial court found that besides the above said unregistered document certain applications were produced by the plaintiff in respect of his claim which had been filed before the Collector Guna. The plaintiff also claimed title on the basis of adverse possession but did not produce any revenue record in support of his continuous uninterrupted possession of the suit land. In addition to the said documentary evidence, the plaintiff recorded his statement before the trial court.

4. The trial court disbelieved the deed of conveyance recorded of 1957 on a plain paper which was unregistered. The trial court further found that basic ingredients of adverse possession which included exclusive continuous and undisturbed possession with the knowledge of real owner and communication of hostile title to the real owner was not proved. The factum of continuous and uninterrupted possession could not be proved by the plaintiff.

5. Learned counsel for appellant has basically contended that even if the title of the suit land could not be proved by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was at least entitled to a decree of permanent injunction by restraining the defendants from ousting the plaintiff from the suit land without following due process of law as held by the Apex Court in the case of Rame Gowda Vs. Varadappa Naidu, 2004(1) SCC 769 and Shavaram @ Seva Vs. Dhapubai and others, 2006 (3) MPHT 260. In support of this contention the counsel for plaintiff has further relied upon the contents paragraph 12 of deposition of DW/1 and contents of paragraph No. 5 of deposition of DW/2. Further reliance by the plaintiff has been placed on the decision of Shanti Kumar Panda Vs. Shakuntala Devi, 200304 Cr. L.R. (SC) (Suppl.) 34 & Devendra & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another 2009 Cr.L.R. (SC) 783.

6. Per contra learned counsel for defendants/ respondents has contended that the plaintiff has failed to establish the basic ingredients of adverse possession as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of G. Krishna Reddy Vs. Sajjappa (D) by L.Rs., & another AIR 2011 SC 2762, Laxman Prasad V. Yagya Narain 1989I MPWN S.N. (283) & Komal Bai v. Firm Chhajulal Fattulal 1998(I) MPWN S.N. 163. It is further contended by the counsel for defendants/ respondents that perusal of paragraphs No. 2 and 5 of the plaint indicates that contradictory pleadings have been made as on one hand in paragraph 2 the plaintiff alleges the sale to have taken place in the year 1957 whereas in paragraph No. 5 of the plaint the averments relates to agreement to sale. Thus the learned counsel for defendants contends that the plea of adverse possession was not made out in the given facts and circumstances.

7. From the perusal of the order of trial court and the first appellate court, it is evident that the basic ingredients necessary for proving the case of adverse possession were missing in the present case as the plaintiff failed to prove exclusive continuous and undisturbed possession and also that such possession was actual and to the knowledge of the real owner and existence of hostile title duly communicated to real owner as provided by the Apex Court in the cas