The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession must fulfill the criteria of continuity, publicity, and extent, and the title acquired through adverse possession is encompassed within the concept of 'title' under Article 65 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

Heard on admission.

1. Present second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2021 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Sarangpur, District Rajgarh (Biaora) in Regular Civil Appeal No.10A/2018, affirming the judgment and decree dated 1.3.2018 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Sarangpur in Civil Appeal No.18-A/2018 filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction, which has been declined by both the courts below.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that appellant/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondent in relation to the agricultural land bearing Survey No.493/7 area 8.582 hectares situated at village Tukoganj, Tehsil Sarangpur, District Rajgarh (Biaora) by stating that original plaintiff Ruga is the owner of the suit land and the suit land is in possession of the ancestors of plaintiff since 1970. The suit land was recorded in the name of the government and the suit land was granted on lease to the landless person belonging to the backward class. Notice under Section 80 of CPC was issued to the government and the reply dated 27.6.2015 was sent by the government. The possession of the plaintiff was attempted to be forcibly taken away from 27.6.2015. Thereafter present suit has been filed.

3. Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 denied all the averments made by the plaintiff by stating that the plaintiff is not a landless person and the suit property is recorded in the name of the government. Respondent No.2/defendant No.2 also denied all the averments made by the plaintiff by stating that the suit property belongs to the ownership of his father Heeralal and after the demise of Heeralal, 5 bigah land came in possession of respondent No.2 and he has filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the 5 bigah land out of the suit property. The trial court after recording the evidence of both the parties, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant/plaintiff preferred the appeal before the first appellate court and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are illegal and are not based on proper appreciation of evidence. Both the courts below have failed to consider the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the appellant. Both the courts below have erred in dismissing the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff. The findings of both the courts below is perverse which is against the evidence available on record. Hence he submits that the appeal deserves to be admitted on the substantial questions of law proposed by the appellant.

5. Both the parties heard at length and perused the entire record of both the courts below with due care.

6. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it appears that the appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, therefore, burden lies upon the appellant to prove his case that he acquired 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 party affected can be found.

8. In the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others Vs. Manjit Kaur and others reported in 2019(2) RN 129 (SC), it has been held that:-

“48. The