//rffi (^hW. ly-^s) -/fl g ?I»SK' IPlOltPlly (VftltF fftfe/i fr) ln?ICt^ --^ • __/ f^& tpfi^ '&'fl'^ nni-i?ih~pippie v>(hif' yisuhb i?[pyj '>lp fp>ff llafp?!^ J^j&LIQI^ Mff ls^?·ll& pic^^xm ^gaS' (•^•S^ llafp^? - IWlnj c?Rla^ - to^ffl) '21Cl2l2Kl-ns^g e£l£l2^Qfs-j£^ ^1131af ^fiff hd l F.-ti'F'mtii:^ ^h^oicti 2ffi'^/fist^ ^S^ (M) ^e^^'. "y 0-\TSf^ ^oo ,r-. ^ ..^ •A^ fl6 9£-S£fQI6g^{Ihyicti •IK- meiSSJ 'ywS (lll) '•'^- "'..< fid fiR-ff'F'MCi^ ^hyicf 'llf mOS:y lnhl?lls (ll) ^^s^' .^>;^ InlPlflPyil/ flQ l F-&£'mSS^ ^h^Jlcf •flf muSI^ (ftllp (l) l' Inlp^ilWIS^E. (•JE-S^ iwfp7t - Wiaf '^ElQ^-'Sti 'ilEjSlZjB-llSlJS '£l£l£lsElK-MI& jf^ll313] 'lsfSb - U&^. efi& Z9 &£. itp^apchj AK^ ^s jsieJiie £t^&U£'/ ^^/ (so / 't""l'i_- cfjKlcis i3ipif ?isoht> fr^y^ ^s^ ZB.SISQ 'OIP^UJJFI /PW//P//P.O /Z2p tPfj^t^ltf l^flfl-? ^p © Clo)-^§- W^f^^ "-70 XI-HC-78 3;n^T?Rr)^:fN; ^arT-3T^TshHi<^ HIHCTT St»+1|tt) 3^ '^[•iiK'i'M, gTfi^'is, Ridiuy -~5;4-...^^. ^ 200S" 3TT^?TT3q7 (1^3^8T) ?RrreiT?i1?a'3Ti^T Order passed as follo 'kl^Icl-'flH ^IHdTiftei^'ifal^K ^arf^fTsn^T 19.7.2006 S.A.No.534/2005 Shri M.A.Latif Rehmo^i, counsei for the appellont. Shri Sunil Tripathi, c^unsel for the respondents on Caveat Petition No. 86/2005. t-1eard Shri Rehman oih admission. \MS: OftAL OR&ER «9.7.2006) This is the plaintiff^ 100 of the Code of Civil fl decree dated 12.9.2005, p4ssed in Civit Appeal No.6-A/2003 by the First Additional bistri^ (C<5). The plaintiff lost in bo|t+i the Courts. The brief facts arel declaration of his title ari Ajab Nagar, P.C. No.36, R &istr'ict- Surguja. The suil based on the pleadings of contended that he is holdina Second Appeal, filed under Section rocedure against the judgment and t Judge, Surajpur, District-Surguja that the plaintiff filed a suit for d a!so for permanent injunction in reiation to three plots, adn|easuring 7 acres, situated in village- .1. Circle, Pilkha, Tehsii- Surajpur, , which was filed on lt.9.1993 was adverse possession. The plaintiff the possession of the said land since the year 1963 and was uno|3Structedly occupying the said land; "70 XI-HC-78 sn^rw R-ficb craT3:n^?rsb^i+ *11HMI St)^l<tl 3^ '^WM^, wf\Wl6, RldlWy ^4. r-24 ?FT 200-S" sn^TTiraqT (^qf^3^) STdTW Hf?(T STI^T ^- therefore, he has perfected l|i decree in. the aforesaid naturfe was opposed by the defendan^ pendency of the suit anc| representatives, who conteste^i The trial Court maj possession. The point of adve( No.l by the trial Court and it was in possession of the suit perfected his title by way of aforesaid judgment and decr^ plaintiff filed the First <Appe4 The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal filed judgWent and decree passed judgment and decree^ passed has filed this Second Appeal Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for th( below comwitted an error of 1( has perfected his title b|/ ^OTfefrT WRcff ^'fe^t Tl^TRTC ^?3Tl^TT3.n^T lis title by way of possession and a •^ be passed in his favour. The suit \s. Defendant No.l died during the was substituted by his legal id the suit. (ily framed issues on adverse ffse possession was decided as issue was held that the plaintiff, though land for certain period, has not adverse possession. Against the ;e passed by the trial Court, the before the lower appeltant court. lalso took the similar view and by the plaintiff, confirming the b|y the trial Court. It is against this |by the Court below, the plaintiff lunder Section 100 of the Code of 2 appellant argues that the courts iw by not holding that the plaintiff way of adverse possession. His P.T.O. 3^ XI-HC-78 3n^rqiTR.(i<*i cRT 3TI^T 9iWti *ll*iwi sh*lic(i Tsg'^lPTRW, »Tfl^f'16,RlclKiy J.'4-..r'5^.... ^ 200 S~ w^\ w* (^yiff) ?¥(TTWnf?iT sn^r ?. submission is that the findl and the appeal be admitted The law in relation settied. If a plaint is fil possession, it is the duty of his possession was adverse of the property. Not only that when his possession b^ possession on permissive and prove about the denia] ouster to the knowledge o| that denial of title and ani| direct evidence or by that ouster of possession expulsion or repulsion or ur\ the other side. In order to constitutl to exclude the other side either by assertion of excli) by merely keeping out of p<^ his protest. That is to sa^ merely required for the +l''<(rl''fl-l t|IHctTffteI^<Rl<^l< ^srf^Tsn^T ng is not in accordance with the law |for hearing. to the adverse possession is well ^d, pleading the factum of adverse the plaintiff to plead and prove that to the interest of the original owner ^his, he will also have to clearly prove ^came adverse and if he is holding the bijisis, he is further required to plead of title of the original owner and f the said owner. The law requires (nous to hold adversely be proved by uneq^iivocal conduct. It is not necessary must be by violent or intimidating der notice of the adverse holding to ^ ouster, there should be an intention <|ind such intention may be expressed sive title or by denial of the title or (ssession the actual ovuner in spite of that not only the long possession is p^irpose of adverse possession there ^ XI-HC-78 sn^rqn'R-ii'* gqT3n^?Ts»»i|cb 3^'-qrai?Tq', siTn<H'i6, Rldiuy 'qTEr^rTanTTgi'"5"^""^•••••"^PT 2005' 3TT^?r iat»)(yl^q^) srarw afN'an^T -it must be an animous to holct thi owner. If all these point: possession of 12 years has nc elements, the question of possession does notarise. Even otherwise also,o| that admittedly this land Department of the State is the owner of the suit landl for declaration of title by filed against the defendants as a formal part^was not posi The Hon'ble Apex (dead) throuah L.Rs. Vs^ woy reported in (2000) 3 5CC Pg.| be reiterated that undsr the 1-ligh Court to entertain ^ such appeals which involve th does not confer any jurisdict with the pure questions of u/s 100 C-.P.C " (See para 7 of| Wqfe?ft;T ITIHcff^'fe^ rfSTRTI: ^sil^pTsn^r e possession adverse to the original ^ are lacking and the period of t been ccmpleted aiong with these perfection of title by adverse fie peculiar feature in this case is belongs to the Rehabilitation Sovfcrnment and the State Sovernment and for this reason also, a decree of adverse possession 4.n the suit in the above manner, making State tible. in the matt-er of ^ocp Sinah Ram Sinah fdead) throuah L.Rs., Colurt 708 has iaid down that " it has to se4tion 100 C.P.C., the Jurisdiction of ^. second appeal is confined only to ^ substantial question of law and it on on the High Cour+ to interfere f^ict while exercising its jurisdiction |fhe Judgment). r.l.u. K« •3 XI-HC-78 3Ti^r?irR-fi+ iraT31T??Tsb11ch sunita ^ ^y. .•^ / c ^c% *1I*1<'1I Sh+llct) 3^'^Trai?pr, BTfld'is, Riiniwy s-.'.A.-..S:?.'i WT 200S- 3TT^?TMa<»i(l?^^) 5Tcnwaf?(T sn^r 5~4 Again the Apex Cou. Thiaaai'a.lan and j>thers Vi others. reporfed in (2004) that of a substantial question ofl exercise of jurisdiction undeif 100 C.P.C." (see para 20 pronouncements go to show law is involved in a case, no s4 by the High Courtexercising In the opinion of thi illegality in the concurrent below. There appears to be does not involve any substont-ial dismissed at the motion stage^ caveat petition stands dischaifged »h|t|f(-t41-(Wlcff ff teA rfSfRR ^iSTf^irsn^r ht laid down in the matt'er of \. Sri VenugoBglswami S. Kojl^nd 5 SCC Pa.762 that "the existence law is the sine quo non for the the amended provisions of section of the judgment). AII these unless a substantial question of [cond appeal wouid be enter-tainable lurisdiction under section 100 C.P.C. ^ Court, there dppears to be no •([indings recorded by the 2 Courts merit in this appeal as the appeal question of law. The appeal is itself. No orders as to costs. The Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge rto P.T.O. j^|ii