The burden of proof lies heavily on the party claiming adverse possession, who must plead and establish all necessary facts to prove adverse possession, including the specific period and nature of possession, continuity, publicity, and hostility towards the true owner.

Rohit Arya, J.

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. The instant appeal by appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of C.P.C. is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 17/03/2008 passed by Additional District Judge Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No. 16-A/2007; confirming the judgment and decree dated 27/2/2007 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-II, Basoda in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2006. By the aforesaid judgment, the plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

3. Facts as pleaded in the plaint and on record for the purposes of disposal of this appeal are to the effect that in respect of suit land; an agricultural land, plaintiff claimed to have entered an agreement to sale with Barelal and Shriram S/o Ganeshram Kanchi of village Biskawali. Rs. 1,000/- as part of consideration of sale was paid on 26/4/1986 and remaining consideration was paid on 1/5/1988 on which date agreement to sale was executed and possession was delivered. Thereafter, plaintiff has been in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the suit land. Behind the back of plaintiff, Barelal and Shriram have transferred the suit land by a registered sale deed dated 25/7/1987 in favour of defendant. Prior to execution of sale deed there was already an agreement to sale in favour of plaintiff. As defendant threatened the plaintiff of forcible dispossession on 19/10/2004 denying plaintiff's right, title or interest over the suit land, therefore, instant suit was filed for declaration of title by adverse possession and permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff.

4. Defendant filed written statement denying the plaint allegations. It is inter alia contended that defendant in fact is in possession of the suit land by virtue of sale deed dated 25/7/1987 executed by Barelal and Shriram and possession was delivered to him. Besides, it is also submitted that Barelal and Shriram have deliberately not made party in the instant suit. That apart, the defendant has also contended that earlier suit No. 135-A/1994 was filed by the plaintiff on the same set of facts and in fact and in effect for the same relief against the defendant which has been dismissed on 16/7/2002 and in fact second appeal No. 116/2003 pending before the High Court has also been decided vide judgment dated 25/9/2006. Earlier suit No. 135-A/1994 filed by plaintiff was seeking relief that in the light of agreement between them, the sale deed executed in favour of defendant-Kamaal Pasha be declared null and void. The present suit filed by the plaintiff is against defendant Kamaal Pasha only. Barelal and Shriram have not been made party. In the instant suit, plaintiff had claimed title by adverse possession. Therefore, present suit is hit by principles of res judicata therefore, liable to be dismissed.

5. On aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court dismissed the suit on the premise that plaintiff has failed to prove perfection of title by adverse possession. However, rejected the plea of res judicata raised by defendant in the light of decision rendered in earlier suit with the reasoning that earlier suit was based on agreement to sale and was for declaration of sale deed dated 25/7/1987 executed by Barelal and Shriram in favour of defendant to be null and void; whereas, instant suit is for adverse possession and therefore, principles of res judicata have no bearing upon the instant suit.

6. On appeal, the first appellate Court dealt with the issue of adverse possession in detail by adverting to oral and documentary evidence brought on record and confirm the findings of the trial Court. The first appellate Court while dealing with the cross-objection raised by defendant inter alia contending that trial Court committed error of law while holding that suit was not barred by principles of res judicata had held in para 20