Mere long-standing possession does not constitute adverse possession unless it is proven to be open, hostile, and to the knowledge of the true owner; concurrent findings of fact in second appeals cannot be interfered with absent a substantial error in procedure or law.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant No.1 against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for possession, had been decreed by both the District Courts.

2. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that as per Jamabandi for the year 2009-2010, it was owner in possession of the suit land as described in the plaint. It was alleged that after demarcation was conducted on 03.02.2017 by order of AC IInd Grade, Charkhi Dadri, defendants were found to have encroached upon suit land and were found to be in illegal possession thereof. Accordingly, on 22.03.2017, plaintiff had served legal notice upon the defendants. However, to no avail. Hence, present suit for possession was filed on 04.05.2017.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri had decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2023 in the following terms: -

“20. Thus, in light of above discussion and keeping in view the findings of this Court on aforesaid issues, present suit is hereby decreed with costs to the effect that the plaintiff is legally entitled to recover possession of the suit property from defendant No. 1 and 2, and defendant No. 1 and 2 are legally bound to deliver its vacant possession to it. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”

4. The Civil Appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Charkhi Dadri vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.2025. Hence, the present second appeal by defendant No.1.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned Courts below have failed to appreciate that in resisting the suit, appellant had taken plea of adverse possession. It is submitted that it is admitted position on record that the defendants have long standing possession of the suit land. Defendant had also succeeded in proving that possession of the suit land was hostile and was in the knowledge of the plaintiff. Thus, defendants had succeeded in proving their adverse possession of the suit land. Yet, defendants had been non-suited on spurious grounds.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts below have erred in interpretation of plea of adverse possession. Both the Courts below have not considered the settled principles of law on adverse possession and has erred in passing the impugned judgments. It is submitted that the unobjected possession of appellant over the suit property is for 40 years possession rendering the claim of the plaintiff untenable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Ravinder Kaur Grewal Vs. Manjit Kaur (2019) 8 SCC 729 has clarified that adverse possession is a hostile claim that ripens into independent title after 12 years under article 65 of the limitation Act, 1963.

7. Further it is submitted that it is categoric pleading in the written statement that the appellant has claimed exclusive, open possession for 40 years far exceeding the threshold of 12 years for private property. However, both the Ld. Courts below have failed to appreciate the law of adverse possession before returning the findings. Thus, impugned judgments are result of non application of settled principles of law and has been passed in a hasty manner and are liable to be set aside.

8. Ld. counsel for the a