A claim for adverse possession requires proof of continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, which was not established by the plaintiffs in this case.

JUDGMENT

Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 96 of CPC, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed this first appeal calling in question the validity, legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2009 passed by the 21st Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Indore (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.118A/2009 dismissing the appellants / plaintiffs' suit filed for declaration of title by adverse possession and permanent injunction.

02. The necessary facts and legal contentions urged on behalf of parties are stated herein with a view to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and decree in dismissing the suit for the relief of declaration on the basis of agreement of sale for adverse possession and permanent injunction requires to be examined by following this appeal.

03. In this judgment for the sake of brevity, I would like to refer to the ranking of the parties as assigned in the plaint presented before the Court. Since there is congruence in mentioning exhibits in the judgment of the trial Court, I will refer to the documents as per annexures presented along with this appeal.

04. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: the appellants herein – original plaintiffs instituted original suit No.118-A/2009 before the 21st Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Indore for relief of declaration of title by virtue of principles of adverse possession on the basis of agreement of sale dated 27.07.1962 and the sale deed dated 07.07.1970 executed by defendants No.1 (Bondi Bai), 2 (Hajra Bai) and 3 (Nani Bai) and similarly the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.5 vide document No.1-A/1852 dated 17.12.2007 is not binding upon the plaintiffs and the mutation order attested in favour of defendant No.4 by Tehsildar, Indore in respect of the suit land is not binding on the plaintiffs and further seeks decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants / respondents from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land.

05. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that the suit land in Patwari Halka old No.26 afterwards No.13 situated at Village Mundala Nayata, Tehsil and District Indore in the name of defendants No.1 to 4 in the year 1960-61. Further stated that the survey No.202 Rakba 0.664 hectares has purchased by the ancestors of plaintiff No.1 and survey No.201/2 Rakba 1.125 hectares was purchased by the ancestors of the plaintiff No.2 from defendants No.1 to 4 by paying the sale consideration amount and possession was obtained, but a registered sale deed was not executed, ever since, the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land without any obstruction and they are having rights on the principles of adverse possession.

06. At the relevant point of time, the plaintiffs recorded them as land owners and registration of sale deed could not be given, though, the consideration amount was paid to them. Further stated that since 1956, the forefathers of the plaintiffs are in the possession of the subject land. Further stated that on 27.07.1962, Rahmat / defendant No.4 executed an agreement of sale in favour of plaintiffs by receiving a sale consideration to the subject land and sold 05 bighas of land out of survey Nos.201/2 and 202 and property was delivered. Further stated that after the death of defendants No.1 (Bondi Bai), 2 (Hajra Bai) and 3 (Nani Bai), without informing them, registered sale deed was executed in respect of suit land in f