Adverse possession requires continuous, open, and hostile possession for 12 years, which was not established by the appellant.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Present second appeal u/s 100 of the CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2017 passed by the learned 4th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Regular Civil Suit No.106 of 2015 and confirmed by learned 5th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bharuch vide order dated 11.7.2022 in RCA No.19 of 2017.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1 The Appellant herein (Original Plaintiff) has been the priest of the Temple situated in the Suit Land, with its appurtenant since 25 years now, in un-interrupted possession thereof. She along with other residents of "Yogeshwar Society has been using the open land and constructed Temple and appurtenant thereon, which forms part of "Ramdevpir Mandir, situated upon non- agriculture land forming part of Revenue survey nos. 64, 28 and 468 and situated at plot nos 17 and 18, at "Yogeshwar society", situated within the Municipal Limits of Bharuch Nagar Pallika, Bharuch. That in the year 1987, "Ramdevpir Mandir was constructed by late Shri Gordhanbhai G. Patel, who happens to be the father of defendants Nos. 3.1 & 3.2. Appellant has been using the suit property with other inhabitants of "Yogeshwar society" for more than 25 years now as occupier thereof, which was always in conscious knowledge of late Gordhanbhai G. Patel and defendants nos. 31 and 3.2 herein, as duly permitted by them. Appellant is still using the Suit Property through herself and her family members, with other inhabitants of "Yogeshwar society for performing religious rituals of the Ramdevpır Mandir situated on the Suit land. Appellant submits that the defendants nos 31 and 3.2, without seeking permission of Charity Commissioner, on 10.04 2003, by way of sale deed have sold the suit property to defendants no 1 and 2, being Trustees of Bharuch Khandesi Bhavsar Panch, which had come to the knowledge of Appellant as Plaintiff, under caveat notice received by her on 07.05.2003. Further, Appellant had also found then that, defendants nos 1 and 2, were raising construction of their community hall, over the suit property, which was infringing their easement rights, over the suit property.

2.2 The Appellant as Plaintiff had therefore filed Regular Civil Suit No 205/2003 on 9-5-2003, before the Ld Civil Court Bharuch. Thereafter upon further bifurcation of the Jurisdictions of the Civil Courts, the same was converted in to Special Civil Suit no 56/2012 and again upon further jurisdictional notification, re-converted to Regular Civil Suit and re-numbered as RCS 106/2015.

2.3 The defendants 1 & 2, upon service of summons appeared in the said Suit and filed their written statement contesting the suit.

2.4 Ld Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 4-1-2017, rejected the Suit of the Plaintiff.

2.5 Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the Plaintiff as Appellant, preferred Regular Civil appeal No 19/2017 before the 5th Additional District & Sessions judge, Bharuch.

2.6 The learned appellate Court dismissed the RCA No.19 of 2017.

3. Hence, present second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:-

“A) Whether the LD Lower Courts have committed a serious error in Law in not discussing the basic legal issue. in the Suit as to whether the Plaintiff is entitled to retain her claim and ownership, based on continuous adverse possession of the Suit property?

B)Whether the LD Lower Courts have committed an error in Law in transgressing from the moot and real legal issue of adverse possession and rejecting the Suit and appeal on other grounds?

C)Whether the LD Lower Courts have committed serious error in Law in discarding the entire eviden