ORDER

Record of both the Courts below has been received.

02.Heard learned counsel for the appellant on admission.

03.Appellant / plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”), being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.04.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, Dewas (M.P.) in RCA No.13/2023, affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2023 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dewas (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.43-A/2018, whereby appellant / plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed and counter claim filed by the respondents / defendants has been allowed.

04.Brief facts of the case are that the appellant / plaintiff filed a civil suit before the trial Court by stating that she has purchased the suit land through registered sale deed dated 16.05.2004 and constructed a temporary house and started residing there with the family members on the basis of the adverse possession since 2004, she became the owner of the house but the defendants tried to dispossess him, therefore, she has filed this suit.

05.Respondents / defendants denied all the averments of the plaint by contending that they are the owner of the land in question which has been duly purchased by them through registered sale deed in the year 2010. They have permitted the plaintiff / appellant to put their construction material on the suit land, the possession of the plaintiff on the suit land was permissive possession. Hence, they are entitled to get vacant possession of the suit land which has been possessed by the plaintiff.

06.Appellant / plaintiff denied all the allegations made in the counter claim by submitting that his adverse possession has been matured over the suit land and counter claim deserves to be dismissed.

07. The trial Court on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings framed the issues and permitted both the parties to lead their evidence. The trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties dismissed the civil suit filed by the appellant / plaintiff and allowed the counter claim filed by the respondent / defendant. Appellant / plaintiff preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The Appellate Court upon re-appreciating the entire evidence placed on record affirmed the findings of fact so recorded by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant / plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

08.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are illegal and not based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence. Both the Courts below have failed to consider the oral as well as the documentary evidence produced by both the parties. The trial Court has erred in dismissing the suit preferred by the appellant / plaintiff and allowing the counter claim filed by the respondents. The respondents have filed the written statement and counter claim separately, therefore, on the basis of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Methu V/s Leemchand reported in 2022 (4) MPLJ 306 , the trial Court has committed error by accepting the counter claim. The appellant / plaintiff's title over the suit land has been matured through adverse possession. Thus, in light of the aforesaid, learned counsel submits that the present appeal deserves to be admitted on the following substantial question of law as proposed by the appellant.

09.I have gone through the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below and also perused the entire record with due care.

10.Appellant / plaintiff – Krishnabai (PW/1) categorically stated in her statement before the trial Court that she has purchased the suit land on 16.03.2004 through sale deed (Exhibit-P/1) but sale deed (Exhibit-

P/1) is not related with the land which has been possessed by the appellant / plaintiff. Appellant-Krishnabai further dep