Interference with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is permissible only if the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from an error of law; mere long possession without proven hostile animus does not establish adverse possession.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Judgment on Board

24/04/2026

1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the plaintiff/appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 23/07/2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 08-A/2022 (Sheikh Anwar Khan v. Duryodhan & Others). By the said judgment, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeals preferred by both the plaintiff and the defendants, and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 11/01/2022 passed by the II Civil Judge Class-I, Kawardha in Civil Suit No. 04-A/2016, whereby both the suit of the plaintiff and the counter-claim of the defendants were dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

3. (a) The plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession, permanent injunction, and recovery of possession in respect of the land situated at Village Podi, Patwari Halka No. 7/21, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham (C.G.), comprising part of Khasra No. 235 admeasuring 0.15 acre, Khasra No. 236 admeasuring 0.04 acre, and Khasra No. 237 admeasuring 0.07 acre, total area 0.26 acre (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”).

(b) According to the plaintiff, his father, late Sheikh Jumman, had purchased certain lands from defendant Nos. 2 to 4 by registered sale deed dated 20.08.1975 and was put in possession thereof. It is pleaded that since the date of purchase, the plaintiff’s father, and thereafter the plaintiff, have been in continuous, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession of the suit property and have been cultivating the same. The plaintiff further asserts that the boundaries of the land have remained unchanged since the date of purchase and that his possession was within the knowledge of the defendants. It is also stated that the plaintiff got his name recorded in the revenue records and has been regularly paying land revenue.

(c) The plaintiff further pleaded that upon objection raised by defendant No. 1 against the construction being carried out by him, proceedings were initiated before the Tahsildar, Bodla, wherein, after spot inspection, the complaint of defendant No. 1 was rejected. It is also stated that in earlier proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sub-Divisional Officer had found possession of the plaintiff and directed that no interference be caused. Despite the same, the defendants allegedly interfered and took possession of the suit property. On these pleadings, the plaintiff claimed that by virtue of long, continuous, and hostile possession for more than 39–40 years, the title of the defendants stood extinguished and the plaintiff had become the exclusive owner by adverse possession.

(d) The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and counterclaim, denying the plaint averments. It was contended that the plaintiff was in possession only of the land actually purchased by his father and that the remaining land continued to be in possession of the defendants. The defendants asserted their ownership over the suit land on the basis of revenue records and pleaded that the plaintiff had encroached upon portions of Khasra Nos. 235, 236, and 237 in the year 2014. The defendants further pleaded that they