Chattisgarh High Court
Samelal vs Raghunath on 24 June, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:25932
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 730 of 2019
Samelal S/o Shri Ful Singh Verma Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Karethi, Tahsil
Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
HIFZURRAHMAN
ANSARI ... Appellant
Digitally signed versus
by
HIFZURRAHMAN
ANSARI
Date: 2026.07.09 1 - Raghunath S/o Shri Bihari Lal Gadariya Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Karethi, Tahsil
17:09:44 +0530
Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
3 - Jagdish S/o Shri Veer Singh R/o Karethi, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
4 - Narendra Tawri S/o Shri Ranidan Tawri R/o Village And Tahsil Dongargaon, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PL
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judgment on Board
24.06.2026
1. Heard on admission.
2. The parties are referred to their original status before the learned trial Court.
3. This is an appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (for short, “CPC“) assailing the legality, correctness and validity of the
judgment and decree dated 29.08.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 74-A/2018
2
passed by the learned Additional Judge, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon
(C.G.) (for short “learned Appellate Court”).
4. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appeal preferred by the appellant
under Section 96 of the CPC was dismissed and the judgment and decree
dated 14.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of 1 st
Civil Judge, Class-II, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (for short
“learned Trial Court” in Civil Suit No. 56-A/2009 was affirmed.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the present suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground that he has
perfected his title by way of adverse possession. The suit property is
agricultural land admeasuring about 0.45 decimal situated at Village Karethi,
P.H. No. 17, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon. It is the case of the
plaintiff that his ancestors were in possession of the suit property and were
cultivating the same and thereafter the plaintiff continued in possession of the
suit property and has perfected his title by adverse possession. It is further the
case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 is attempting to interfere with his
possession. Hence, the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction
has been filed.
6. Defendant No. 1 appeared before the Trial Court and filed his written
statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It was pleaded that the
suit property stands recorded in the name of Defendant No. 1 in the revenue
records. Upon demarcation, it came to the knowledge of Defendant No. 1 that
part of Khasra No. 446/24, admeasuring 0.45 decimal out of 15 decimal, had
been encroached upon by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was requested to vacate
the said portion of the land, however, he refused the request and became
aggressive, leading to quarrels and altercations. It is further pleaded that the
3
plaintiff forcefully and unauthorisedly taken possession of the suit property
and has instituted the present suit on false and untenable grounds. The same
claim was also made by Defendant No. 1 in his counterclaim. He stated that he
is the sole and absolute owner of the land bearing Survey No. 446/24,
measuring 0.45 decimal. He prayed to the Court to declare him as the owner of
the land and to pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Plaintiff
from interfering with his peaceful possession and use of the property. He also
sought recovery of possession of a portion of the land measuring 0.15 decimal,
which he alleged had been unlawfully occupied by the Plaintiff by
constructing a stone enclosure and a Kothar (storage structure).
7. The plaintiff in reply to the written statement and counterclaim denied the
averments made therein and pleaded that he has been in continuous possession
of the suit property for the last 50 years without any interference.
8. Defendant No. 4 by filing his written statement, denied each and every
allegation and averment made by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the suit land
is duly recorded in the revenue records in the name of Defendant No. 4 who is
the lawful owner and person in possession thereof. It is further submitted that
Defendant No. 4, acting bona fide and for valuable consideration of Rs.
2,00,000/- purchased the suit property from Defendant No. 3 through a
registered sale deed dated 08.05.2012 and thereby lawfully acquired valid title,
ownership and possession over the said property. Defendant No. 4 is the
lawful owner, title-holder and person in possession of the suit land and no
other person has any right, title or interest therein. The plaintiff is not entitled
to any relief as claimed. The registered sale deed is valid, legal and binding
upon the plaintiff as well as the other defendants. Accordingly, the suit
instituted by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed with costs.
4
9. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the
following issues for determination.
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a “Not Proved.”
declaration of title over the suit property
described in Schedule ‘A’, being land situated at
Village Karethi, Patwari Halka No. 17, Tahsil
Dongargaon, Khasra No. 446/24, admeasuring
0.45 decimal, on the basis of adverse
possession?
2.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of “Not Proved.”
permanent injunction restraining the Defendants
or any person claiming through or under them
from interfering with the suit property?
3. Whether the Sale Deed executed by “Not Proved.”
Defendant No. 3 in favour of Defendant No. 4
in respect of the land described in Schedule ‘A’
is illegal, void, and liable to be declared null?
4. Whether the Plaintiff has properly valued “Proved”
the suit and paid the requisite court fee?
5. Whether Defendant No. 1 is entitled to a “Not Proved.”
declaration of title in respect of the suit
property described in Schedule ‘A’?
6. Whether Defendant No. 1 is entitled to a “Not Proved.”
decree of permanent injunction restraining the
Plaintiff and any person claiming through or
under the Plaintiff from interfering with the
suit property?
7. Whether Defendant No. 1 is entitled to Not
recover possession of 0.15 decimal of land Proved.”
comprising the granary (Kothar) constructed
on the suit property?
8. Relief and costs. In terms of
Paragraph 41 of
the Judgment, the
suit instituted by
the Plaintiff as well
as the counterclaim
preferred by
Defendant No. 1
are dismissed.
5
10. The respective parties led their evidence before the Trial Court. Upon appreciation
of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court
decided Issues and dismissed the suit as well as the counterclaim of defendant No. 1.
Being aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure before the First Appellate Court. The said appeal also came
to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the ancestors of the plaintiff and
thereafter the plaintiff have been in continuous possession of the suit property for the
last 40-50 years. It is further submitted that such possession was peaceful, open and
uninterrupted and was never under threat or challenge. Therefore, the plaintiff has
perfected his title by way of adverse possession. It is contended that any threat or
interference was raised only after demarcation carried out by Defendant No. 1 that
too after a period of 40-50 years. Hence, it is submitted that both the Courts below
have failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and therefore the
substantial questions of law proposed in the memorandum of appeal deserve to be
framed and the appeal deserves to be admitted.
12. Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that
the dispute is essentially between the plaintiff and the private respondents and the
State is only a formal party to the proceedings.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with utmost
circumspection.
14. The principal claim of the plaintiff relates to adverse possession wherein it is
pleaded that the plaintiff and his ancestors have been in possession of the suit
property for the last 40-50 years. Issue No. 1 is the germane issue framed for
determination of the plaintiff’s claim of title by way of adverse possession which has
been held to be not proved by the learned Trial Court. Upon appreciation of the
6
evidence on record, the learned Trial Court has recorded categorical findings in
paragraphs 28, 29 and 31 as under:
“28. For the purpose of attracting the doctrine of adverse
possession, it is necessary that a person must be in continuous, open,
peaceful and uninterrupted possession of another person’s property,
to the knowledge of the true owner, and such possession must be
hostile to the title of the true owner, i.e., the possessor must deny the
title of the rightful owner. Where such possession continues for more
than twelve years, and in the case of Government property for more
than thirty years, the person in possession is deemed to have
perfected title by way of adverse possession.
29. In the present case, the has merely stated in his oral testimony
that he has been in possession of the suit land since the time of his
ancestors. The plaintiff has not produced any cogent documentary
evidence to establish such possession and has only made a bald oral
assertion regarding possession over the suit land. In such
circumstances, it cannot be held that the Plaintiff has been in
continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the suit
property to the exclusion and denial of the title of the Defendants.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s possession over the
suit property amounts to adverse possession. From the appreciation
of the evidence on record, it is evident that the plaintiff has merely
pleaded oral possession over the suit property, and on such basis it
cannot be held that the Plaintiff has perfected title by way of adverse
possession.
31. The judicial precedents relied upon by the plaintiff also lay down
that even in cases where adverse possession is established, the relief
of declaration of title cannot be granted as a matter of course. In
7view of the evidence adduced and the settled legal principles, it
cannot be held that the plaintiff has acquired title over the suit land
by way of adverse possession. The judgments cited by the plaintiff
are distinguishable on facts and are therefore not applicable to the
present case, and the plaintiff cannot derive any benefit therefrom.
Accordingly, on an overall appreciation of the evidence on record,
the plaintiff has failed to prove this issue. The issue is, therefore,
answered in the negative.”
15. The findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court were arrived at upon
a meticulous examination and appreciation of the evidence on record with
respect to the possession of the suit property. The said findings have been duly
affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. In paragraph 21 at page 21, the
First Appellate Court held that the plea of adverse possession must be strictly
proved by establishing hostile, open, continuous and uninterrupted possession
to the knowledge of the true owner, along with clear evidence as to when and
in what manner the title of the true owner was denied. Mere oral assertions, in
the absence of documentary or cogent evidence, are not sufficient. In the
absence of proof regarding the commencement and perfection of hostile
possession, the claim of adverse possession cannot be sustained. It was further
held that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on proper
appreciation of evidence and do not warrant any interference in appeal, and
consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merit.
16. In light of the aforesaid, both the Courts below have recorded categorical
findings that the Plaintiff has failed to prove the plea of adverse possession so
as to perfect title over the suit property.
8
17. It is settled position of law that the person who pleads to perfect his title on
the basis of adverse possession is required to prove and plead the following
conditions:
i) on what date he came into possession,
ii) what was the nature of his possession,
iii) whether the factum of possession was know to the defendants/respondents,
iv) how long his possession was continued,
v) his possession was open and undisturbed,
vi) date on which his possession became adverse.
18. The intention to possess is totally different from the intention to dispossess. The
plaintiff is required to plead in his plaint the date on which his possession become
adverse to the real owner and when it came to the knowledge of the real owner with
regard to adverse possession. That would be the starting point of calculation of
limitation to arrive to a conclusion that certain periods have lapsed and he has
perfected his title by adverse possession. The long drawn possession in the
property itself is not sufficient to hold that that the person has perfected his
title by way of adverse possession.
19. The law with regard to perfection of title on the basis of adverse possession is
no longer res integra. A Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of M. Siddiq (dead) through LRs. (Ram Jan- mabhumi Temple case)
v. Mahant Suresh Das and ors. reported in (2020) 1 SCC 1 in paragraph
1142-1143 held as under:-
“1142. A plea of adverse possession is founded on the ac- ceptance
that ownership of the property vests in another against whom the
claimant asserts a possession adverse to the title of the other.
Possession is adverse in the sense that it is contrary to the
acknowledged title in the other person against whom it is claimed.
Evidently, there- fore, the plaintiffs in Suit No. 4 ought to be
cognizant of the fact that any claim of adverse possession against
the Hin-dus or the temple would amount to an acceptance of a ti-
tle in the latter. Dr Dhavan has submitted that this plea is a
9subsidiary or alternate plea upon which it is not neces-
sary for the plaintiffs to stand in the event that their main plea on
title is held to be established on evidence. It be- comes then
necessary to assess as to whether the claim of adverse possession
has been established.
1143. A person who sets up a plea of adverse possession must
establish both possession which is peaceful, open and continuous
possession which meets the requirement of being nec vi nec claim
and nec precario. To substantiate a plea of adverse possession, the
character of the possession must be adequate in continuity and in the
public because the possession has to be to the knowledge of the true
owner in order for it to be adverse. These requirements have to be
duly established first by adequate pleadings and second by leading
sufficient evidence. Evidence, it is well settled, can only be adduced
with reference to matters which are pleaded in a civil suit
and in the absence of an adequate pleading, evidence by itself
cannot supply the deficiency of a pleaded case. Reading paragraph
11(a), it becomes evident that beyond stating that the Muslims have
been in long exclusive and continuous possession beginning from
the time when the Mosque was built and until it was desecrated, no
factual basis has been furnished. This is not merely a matter of
details or evidence. A plea of adverse possession seeks to defeat the
rights of the true owner and the law is not readily accepting of such
a case unless a clear and co- gent basis has been made out in the
pleadings and estab-lished in the evidence.”
20. This judgment was relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Uttam Chand (Dead) through LRs Versus Nathu Ram (dead) through LRs
reported in (2020) 11 SCC 263 in para 15. In case of M. Karim Vs. Mst Bibi
Sakina reported in AIR 1964 SC 1254, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as
under:-
“Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity
and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when
possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation
against the party affected can be found. here is no evidence here
when possession became adverse, if it at all did, and a mere
suggestion in the relief clause that there was an uninterrupted
possession for “several 12 years” or that the plaintiff had acquired
“an absolute title” was not enough to raise such a plea. Long
possession is not necessarily adverse possession and the prayer
clause is not a substitute for a plea.”
21. In case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and ors. Vs. Manjit Kaur and ors.
reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
10
“60. The adverse possession requires all the three classic requirements
to co-exist at the same time, namely, nec vi i.e. adequate in continuity,
nec clam i.e., adequate in publicity and nec precario i.e. adverse to a
competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge. Visible, notorious and
peaceful so that if the owner does not take care to know notorious
facts, knowledge is attributed to him on the basis
that but for due diligence he would have known it. Adverse possession
cannot be decreed on a title which is not pleaded. Animus possidendi
under hostile colour of title is required. Trespasser’s long possession
is not synonym with adverse possession. Trespasser’s possession is
construed to be on behalf of the owner, the casual user does not
constitute adverse possession. The owner can take possession from a
trespasser at any point in time. Possessor looks after the property,
protects it and in case of agricultural property by and the large concept
is that actual tiller should own the land who works by dint of his hard
labour and makes the land cultivable. The legislature in various States
confers rights based on possession.”
22. Following observation was made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Chatti Konati Rao & Others Vs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao
reported in (2010) 14 SCC 316 with regard to plea of adverse possession:
“15. Animus possidendi as is well known a requisite ingredient of
adverse possession. Mere possession does not ripen into possessory
title until possessor holds property adverse to the title of the true
owner for the said purpose. The person who claims adverse
possession is required to establish the date on which he came in
possession, nature of possession, the factum of possession,
knowledge to the true owner, duration of possession and possession
was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession
has no equities in his favour as he is trying top defeat the rights of
the true owner and, hence, it is for him to clearly plead and establish
all facts necessary to establish adverse possession. The courts
always take unkind view towards statutes of limitation overriding
property rights. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of
law but a blended one of fact and law.”
23. In order to establish a plea of adverse possession, the possession of the
claimant must be open, continuous, uninterrupted, hostile, and to the
11
knowledge of the true owner for the statutory period. Mere possession,
however long without the necessary animus possidendi, is insufficient to
constitute adverse possession.
24. In the case at hand, this Court is unable to find any material demonstrating
hostile possession on the part of the plaintiff against deceased defendant No. 1.
Consequently, the plea of adverse possession is devoid of merit and deserves
rejection.
25. It is well settled that for admission of a second appeal under Section 100 of
the CPC, formulation of a substantial question of law is sine qua non, as held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and sons Ltd. v.
Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC
1314 and in the matter of Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors.
Vs. Saraswati & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273. In the present
case, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the
appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
26. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Decree be drawn
accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE
H. Ansari
