A claimant must prove continuous, public, and exclusive possession for adverse possession; mere possession or an unregistered agreement does not confer title.

ORDER :

1. This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2019 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Agar, District Shajapur (now Agar Malwa) in Regular Civil Appeal No. RCA 45-A/2019 allowing the first appeal and reversing the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Civil Judge, Class-I, Agar, District Agar Malwa in Civil Suit No. 28-A/16 filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants with regard tot he suit property.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 07.12.2015 appellant/plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants regarding suit property agricultural land survey no. 362 area 1.61 hectare (Old survey no. 216/2 area 1.615 hectare) situated at village Gangadhadda Tehsil and district Agar-Malwa. It is further pleaded that plaintiff's brother Ruggaji purchased the suit land from Heera S/o Khumanji on 18.01.1994 and on this day Heeraji executed an agreement and delivered possession of the suit land to Ruggaji. After the death of Ruggaji appellant was cultivating the land and since then he is in possession till today. After the death of Heeraji, respondents got the land mutated in their name in conspiracy with Patwari and created dispute therefore, with the mediation of the villagers, appellant gave Rs.1 lac to Dunga and Narayan and they executed an agreement in favour of appellant on 20.04.2009. It was agreed by the defendants that after the soyabeen crop they will execute sale deed in favour of appellant/plaintiff. Appellant/plaintiff applied for recording of his possession in the revenue record before the Tehsildar which was allowed vide order dated 19.10.2012 and plaintiff's name was recorded in the revenue records. The appellant/plaintiff is in possession of suit land since 10.01.1994 therefore perfected his title by way of adverse possession. Respondent tried to interfere in the possession of plaintiff therefore, suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed.

3. Defendant denied the plaint averments and pleaded that plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and they are in possession. Ruggaji is still alive therefore, plaintiff is not having right title over the land.

4. The trial Court framed the issues in the suit and after recording the evidence of the parties decree the suit vide judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019 in favour of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants to disturb the possession of the appellant/plaintiff and plaintiff be not dispossessed without due course of law.

5. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was challenged by the respondents/defendants before the first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2019 allowed the appeal by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the appellant/plaintiff filed the present second appeal and argued that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court are illegal and not based on proper appreciation of evidence. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have failed to consider the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the appellant. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have erred in dismissing the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff. The findings of both the courts below are 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.

7. Both the parties are heard at length and perused the entire record of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court with due care.

8. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it appears that the appellant/plaintiff filed