The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove continuity and publicity of possession for adverse possession claims, as well as the necessity of a registered instrument for transfer of immovable property.

ORDER :

Appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2019 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Rajgarh (MP) in Regular Civil Appeal No.37 of 2017 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.80-A of 2018 by Second Civil Judge, Class-2, Rajgarh, by which the trial Court has rejected the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction which has been affirmed by the first appellate Court.

2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell is that the appellants/plaintiffs have filed the suit before the trial Court and pleaded that plaintiffs are the title holder of land bearing survey no.269/2, raqba 3.035 hectare and survey no.2.024 hectares and has stated that suit land was recorded in the name of respondent/defendant No.1 but the father of respondent No.1 had executed the sale deed in favour of father of plaintiffs and delivered the possession to the father of plaintiffs and after the death of plaintiffs father, plaintiffs are continuously and regularly in possession of the land holders so their adverse title has been accrued against the defendants. So by way of adverse possession declaration of title on the disputed land and restrained the defendants by way of issuing permanent injunction.

3. The defendants/respondents admitted the pleadings of the appellants/plaintiffs and produced the same for decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiffs. The respondents No.4 has denied the averments pleaded in the plaint and has stated that he purchased the disputed land by way of sale deed from the defendant No.1. Hence prays for rejection of the civil suit.

4. That, on the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court has framed many issues and has recorded the evidence of the parties and based on the appreciation of facts has passed the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2017, whereby the suit filed by appellants/plaintiffs for declaration and injunction was dismissed.

5. The appellants/plaintiffs has filed the second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court has rejected the appeal filed by the plaintiffs affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

6. The appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed the second appeal and has stated that the first appellate Court has committed grave error of law in affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. He further submits that both the courts below have committed grave error in rejecting the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs.. He further submits that the defendants No.1, 2 and 3 admitted the pleadings of the plaintiffs and inspite of this, the Courts below had not decreed the suit of plaintiffs. He further submits that the plaintiffs rights in the disputed land was accrued by way of adverse possession. So prays for setting-aside the judgment passed by the courts below.

7. I have heard counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and perused the record of the case.

8. From the perusal of record, it appears that the appellants/plaintiffs had filed the civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction so the burden of proof lies upon the appellants/plaintiffs to prove their case that they acquired the title of the suit land by adverse possession.

(7) The law with regard to perfecting title by adverse possession is well settled. A person claiming title by adverse possession has to prove three "neck" - nec vi, nec clam and nec precario. In other words, he must show that his possession is adequate in continuity in publicity and in extent. Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the