Deo Baksh and Another vs Hajarelal and Others

Alok Aradhe, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal is by the plaintiffs who have lost in both the courts below.

The facts, giving rise to filing of the appeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiffs filed the suit inter alia on the ground that the land admeasuring 1.18 acres forming a part of survey number 151/1 is the ancestral land of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are in cultivating possession of the same. On the eastern side of the aforesaid land, the land belonging to the defendants 1 and 2 is situate. The defendants 1 and 2 had submitted an application for demarcation which was carried out without issuing notice to the respondents and in their absence. It was further pleaded that in case the suit land belongs to the defendant then also the plaintiffs have acquired title in respect of the same by adverse possession. However, on 8.10.1992, the defendants tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

The defendants 1 to 6 filed the written statement in which inter alia the claim of the plaintiffs was denied. It was further pleaded that the defendants are owners of the land in question and are in possession of the same. It was further pleaded that the demarcation was carried out in the presence of son of the respondent No. 2.

The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.3.1996 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The aforesaid decree has been affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective which resulted in erroneous finding and consequently an erroneous decree.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that the plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law, but a mixed question of fact and law. Mere possession for how-so-ever length of time does not result in converting permissive possession into adverse possession. [See: Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs. Smt. Raj Kumar Sharma and others, , Krishnamurthy S. Setlur Dead by LRs. Vs. O.V. Narasimha Setty and Others, , Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and others Vs. Balwant alias Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil (dead) by LRs. and heirs etc., and Thakur Kishan Singh (dead) Vs. Arvind Kumar, In the instant case, both the courts below on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record have held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the factum of acquisition of title by adverse possession. The aforesaid finding recorded by the courts below cannot be said to be either perverse or based on no evidence.

Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact u/s 100 of the CPC is well defined by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact until or unless the same is perverse or contrary to material on record. [See: Narayanan Rajendran and Another Vs. Lekshmy Sarojini and Others, , Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 189 , Union of India (UOI) Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, , D.R. Rathna Murthy Vs. Ramappa, Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, and Vanchalabai Raghunath Ithape (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Shankarrao Baburao Bhilare (D) by L.Rs. and Others, ].

Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to dislodge the concurrent finding of fact which are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record.

For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the instant appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.