1. Since both the appeals have been filed by the same appellant/defendant, they are being considered and decided together by this common judgment.

MA No. 195/2025:-

2. By the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘the CPC’), the appellant/defendant is challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Khairagrah, C.G. in Civil Appeal No.02-A/2019 (Gangaram Marar & Ors. Vs. Dashrath Ram & Anr.), whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class- I in Civil Suit No.01A/2014 dated 08/02/2019 (Gangaram Marar & Ors. Vs. Dashrath Ram & Anr.) has been set-aside and the matter has been remanded to the trial Court for fresh adjudication.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

4. The plaintiff preferred the suit seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession by removal of encroachment, permanent injunction and compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per year till restoration of possession along with costs pleading inter alia that the suit land bearing Khasra No. 387/2, admeasuring 0.04 decimal, situated at Village Katangikala, P.H. No. 3, R.N.M. Pandadah, Tehsil Khairagarh, as described in Schedule-A annexed to the plaint, is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and stands recorded in their names in the revenue records including B-1 and Khasra Panchshala. The plaintiffs were in possession of the said land and had constructed a stone boundary wall and fencing and used the land as a garden by growing vegetables. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 illegally encroached upon 0.03 decimal of the suit land, as shown in red ink in Schedule-B, demolished the plaintiffs’ hut and fencing, and started construction of a permanent house thereon. On dispute being raised, a demarcation was conducted by the Revenue Inspector on 24.12.2013 in the presence of the parties, wherein it was found that defendant No. 1 had illegally occupied 0.03 decimal of the suit land. Despite being informed about the encroachment, the defendant refused to vacate the land.

5. In the written statement, defendant No. 1 denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that he has been in peaceful possession of the suit land for more than 35 years and claims ownership over the same. It is stated that his house and a well exist on the land and that electricity and water connections have also been installed there. He has further planted several fruit-bearing trees on the said land. The defendant alleged that the demarcation relied upon by the plaintiffs was conducted in collusion with the Patwari and Revenue Inspector in his absence and without any notice or information to him, and therefore the said demarcation report is false and not binding upon him. It is further pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation and that the defendant, having been in possession of the land for about 35–40 years, has acquired ownership on the basis of such long possession. It is also contended that the alleged demarcation is incorrect and does not confer any right upon the plaintiffs, and that the present suit has been filed only to harass the defendant. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit with costs has been prayed for.

MA No. 197/2025:-

6. By the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘the CPC’), the appellant/defendant is challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Khairagrah, C.G. in Civil Appeal No.03-A/2019 (Jangluram Vs. Dashrath Ram & Anr.), whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class- I in Civil Suit No.02A/2014 dated 11/02/2019 (Jangluram Vs. Dashrath Ram & Anr.) has been set-aside and the matter has been remanded to the trial Court for fresh adjudication.

7. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the