Title claims and adverse possession are contradictory; plaintiffs must establish the timeline of possession with clear and consistent evidence to prevail in claims of adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

This second appeal is filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs who have filed Case No. (Civil Suit) 202-A/06 in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class I, Rewa. The suit was dismissed and appeal of plaintiff bearing No. 24-A/07 was also dismissed. The parties have been heard on admission.

2. It was argued that both the Courts failed to see that plaintiffs were having title and possession was sought against the State Government on the ground of adverse possession on the suit property over the last 30 years. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Motiram Vs. Pannalal , 2002(1) M.P.L.J. 86 . Attention was drawn to paragraphs 15 and 16, which are as below:-

“15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record, considered the rival and forceful submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal has no substance and deserves to be dismissed as in my considered opinion the judgment and decree granted by the Courts below, the factual aspect of the matter, based on concurrent finding of facts stands concluded. The title of the respondent became perfected by virtue of adverse possession as he was found continuously in possession without any legal Gift -Deed in his favour. My this view is fortified by the view taken in the case of Bala (supra) by R.C. Lahoti, J., as he then was placing reliance of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of W.B. v. The Dalhousie Institute Society, reported in (1970) 3 SCC 802 : AIR 1970 SC 1778; and in the case Collector of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, reported in AIR 1951 SC 469;, that if the possession of a person under the colour of invalid grant continues without any legal title and such possession not being referable to any legal title is prima facie adverse to the owner from the very moment of taking possession of the land under the invalid grant. Thus in such a legal situation the possession of a person under invalid grant cannot be treated as permissive in nature. The party who is continuously in possession under invalid grant after more than 12 years his title can be said to have perfected by adverse possession and he can claim such a right. In this case undoubtedly both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding that the plaintiff continuously is in possession under colour of invalid grant. Thus, both the Courts were right in upholding the contentions raised by the respondents/plaintiffs. The appellant/defendant could not make out any case before me on the questions of law which were formulated at the time of admission of this appeal that the Courts below have committed aft error of law either in putting the burden of disproving the claim of the plaintiffs in the context of the adverse possession or the Courts below have committed an error of law in mis-reading the Revenue Record in context with possession of plaintiffs in respect of suit property and thus the judgments of both the Courts below do not suffer from any infirmity or perversity on the question of claim of the appellants/defendants. Ex. P/4 is Panch Sala Khasra entries for the year 1974-1975 to 1977-1978 in which the name of the plaintiff has been mentioned in the Column No. 12 of possession. The same is the position in Exs. P /5 and P /6 which are Khasra entries from 1969-1970 to 1977-1978. No other revenue record has been filed. Therefore, from the aforesaid documents which are part of revenue record clear factual position emerging is that the land in dispute is in possession of the respondents /plaintiffs.

16. In view of th