JUDGEMENT

This Second Appeal is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 44-A/2014 dated 04-02-2015 by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Chhindwara by which the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 34-A/13 dated 30-09-2014 by which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and he was declared owner of the disputed land on the basis of adverse possession and injunction was passed against the defendants.

2. In nutshell, the case before the trial court was that Dhan Singh and Dariab Singh were two brothers. Tejulal, Meejo and Gendu are the sons of Batti Bai and Phaggu and Phaglal are the sons of Malkho Bai.

3. As per plaint averments, Dhan Singh and Dariab Singh were two brothers. Dhan Singh have three issues one son- Mahajan @ Dharampal and two sisters Batti Bai and Malkho Bai. Batti Bai have three sons Tejulal, Meejo and Gendu and Phaggu and Phaglal are the sons of Malkho Bai and Johar was the son of Dariab Singh and Sadhu and Chhadu are the sons of Johar. Dharampal Singh died in the year 1992-93. The disputed land Survey No. 195,311,312,313,314 and 323 total area admeasuring 5.254 hectare from the agricultural land of Dharampal.Dharampal was issueless and her sisters Batti Bai and Malkho Bai were residing in their matrimonial home. The plaintiff was taking care of Dharampal Dharampal and was treating the plaintiff as his son and being pleased with the service and care, love and affection, the disputed land was given to the plaintiff and he is in possession of the disputed land and farming on that. Dharampal has asked the plaintiff to look, care and maintain his aunt Radhia Bai as he has taken care of Dharampal. Possession of the disputed land was given in the consideration that the plaintiff will look after the wife of Dharampal as per terms plaintiff has taken care of her aunt Radhia Bai till her death. In the year 1994-95, Radhia Bai on the instigation of other persons started quarreling with him and stated that she will take back possession of the disputed land from him, she want to hand over the land to her sister-in-laws but, when the plaintiff disclosed the last wish of Dharampal and disclosed that Dharampal has handed over the whole land to him and no other person is having interest and he will not handover the possession and use of land to any other person declining request of Radhia Bai and he is in possession and on that basis, he got the ownership over the disputed property and his possession becomes adverse on 21-04-2012. The defendants tried to dispossess him on which the plaintiff has filed the report to the police station Umranala. on inquiry,he found that the defendant with the collusion of the revenue authorities recorded their names as owners in the revenue papers and so he filed suit for declaration of title and declaring the neighbours name as defendants in the revenue record be null and void and also for injunction.

4. The defendants filed reply and submitted that Batti Bai and Malkho Bai are the real sisters of Dharampal and after death of Dharampal, their LRs are owners and possession of whole of the disputed property is also filed through counter-claim.

5. The trial Court after framing of issues and recording of evidence passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff and declared the original plaintiff as owner of the disputed property on the basis of adverse possession and also granted relief of injunction against the respondents and dismissed the counter-

claim.

6. The defendants filed the First Appeal and the First Appellate Court after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal and reversed the finding of the trial Court and concluded that the plaintiff is not entitled for decree of title on the basis of adverse possession as the fact of adverse possession has not been properly pleaded in the suit.

7. In the Second Appeal, learned counsel for the appellant on admission has argued that the trial Court has properly appreciated the ev