Possession must be actual, exclusive, and hostile to constitute adverse possession; mere long possession is insufficient.

1. This is defendant's Second Appeal filed under S.100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 30.09,1999 passed by the 8 I Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No. 62 - A / 99 reversing the judgment and decree dated 07.02.1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Katghora, in Civil Suit No. 45 - A / 92.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that: plaintiff Kunjlal filed a suit for declaration of his title and mandatory injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 9 from interfering with his possession. It was case of the plaintiff that he purchased the suit land bearing Khasra Nos. 705/3,706/3, 708/1, 706/2, 708/2 and 706, total area 6.42 Acres, situated in Village Malda, Distt. Bilaspur, from Maharaja Singh, the grand - father of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 late Gangadhar Singh i.e. father of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and husband of defendant No. 7, on 01.07.1955, 17.09.1955 and December, 1955 for Rs. 1000/-, 300/- and 200/-. Two transactions i.e. 01.07.1955 & 17.09.1955 were done in writing on stamp paper whereas the transaction which took place in December, 1955 was oral. It was further submitted that plaintiff was in possession of the suit land since 1955; sale deeds were promised to be executed but were no executed, and therefore, plaintiff filed instant suit after serving a notice to the defendants and after publishing advertisement in the news paper. In the alternative, title was also claimed by way of adverse possession pursuant to his alleged peaceful uninterrupted possession since 1955.

3. The claim was denied by the appellants / defendants inter alia on the ground that no sale deed was ever executed in his favour at any time whatsoever nor anything was given to him in writing. The defendants further denied possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.

4. The trial court found that in the absence of registered sale deed and production of any documentary evidence to that effect, the plaintiff failed to establish that he had purchased the suit land. It was further found that no continues possession for the last 12 years over the suit land was established, and accordingly dismissed the suit.

5. The plaintiff preferred first appeal there - against. The first Appellate Court also found that plaintiff failed to establish purchase of suit land in the absence of production of any document, however, based on oral evidence, held: plaintiff had perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse possession, and accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence this Second Appeal.

6. This court admitted the appeal on 18.04.2013 on the following substantial question of law :
"Whether findings of lower appellate court relating to nature of possession based on the unregistered document of sale that it was adverse possession is justified?"

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned including records of both the courts below.

8. Both the courts below have concurrently held that plaintiff failed to establish his title over the suit land based on its purchase vide alleged deeds dated 01.07.1955 & 17.09.1955 and also by oral transaction allegedly took place in the month of December, 1955, however, the court below, based on appreciation of oral evidence came to a conclusion that plaintiff is in continuous and uninterrupted possession for a period of more than 12 years and had perfected his title by way of adverse possession, decreed the suit.

9. The Supreme Court in case of State of West Bengal v. The Dalhousie Insdtute Society , AIR 1970 SC 1778 , wherein, in a case where admittedly / the