Madhya Pradesh High Court
Than Singh vs Gopilal on 4 December, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31629
1 SA-283-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 4 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 283 of 2011
THAN SINGH
Versus
GOPILAL AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
Shri Rajiv Jain, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri R.P.Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
This second appeal, under section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15/1/2011 passed by III Additional District Judge, Vidisha in Civil Appeal No. 22A/2010, as well as, judgment and decree dated 20/ 11/2009 passed by IV Civil Judge Class II, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 29A/2009.
2. Appellant is plaintiff who has lost his case from both the Courts below.
3. Appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground that he is the owner and in possession of Survey No. 16, area 1.881 hectares situated in Village Mannupura, Tahsil Gyaraspur, District Vidisha. It is the case of plaintiff that even his father was in possession of the disputed land and, therefore, he is in possession of the land in dispute for the last 40 years. It was claimed that the father of the plaintiff had purchased the land in dispute from Rukmani Bai but owing to financial difficulties, sale deed could not be executed. Later on, Rukmani Bai expired but it was pleaded that at the time of sale, Rukmani Bai had transferred the possession of the property. Thus, it was claimed Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-12-2025 13:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31629 2 SA-283-2011 that name of the plaintiff is recorded in the revenue records as Maurusi Krishak . Plaintiff filed an application under section 110 read with section 150 of MPLRC for mutation of his name. Tahsildar, by order dated 22/2/1997 passed in Case No. 130/A-6/93-94 allowed the application and on the basis of report given by Patwari that plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute for the last more than 30 years, directed for mutation of name of plaintiff and since then plaintiff is in possession in the capacity of Bhumiswami. Defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal before SDO and SDO by order dated 15-9-2006 set aside the order dated 22-2- 1997 passed by Tahsildar and remanded the matter back. Thereafter, Tahsildar Gyaraspur, by order dated 31-12-2007, rejected the application for mutation on the ground of jurisdiction. It was further observed in the order that since the property in question is an unclaimed property, therefore, it should be recorded in the revenue records as such and, accordingly, it was prayed by the plaintiff that the employees subordinate to defendant No.1 are trying to get the land recorded as Government land being unoccupied. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the defendant No.1 is trying to dispossess the plaintiff and in case if the deletion of name of plaintiff from the revenue records is not stopped, he would suffer irreparable loss. It was specifically pleaded in paragraph 10 that since the plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute for the last 40 years and since his name was also recorded as Bhumiswami by order dated 22-2-1997, therefore, it should be declared that plaintiff has perfected his title by way of adverse possession and a permanent injunction be issued against defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property as well as for making any correction in the revenue record.
4. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement and denied the plaint averments. It was claimed that plaintiff was never in possession, whereas father of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-12-2025 13:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31629 3 SA-283-2011 defendant No.1 is in possession of the property in dispute.
5. Defendant No.2 also filed its written statement and denied the plaint averments. It was submitted that since the order dated 22-2-1997 passed by Tahsildar Gyaraspur has already been set aside, therefore no reliance can be placed by the plaintiff on the said order. The name of the plaintiff is no more in the revenue records and he is not in possession of the property. At present, the name of earlier owner Rukmani Bai is recorded in the revenue record.
6. The trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, dismissed the suit.
7. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, appellant preferred an appeal which too has been dismissed by the appellate Court.
8. Challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that since the appellant is in possession of the property in dispute for the last 40 years, therefore, he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession.
9. Per contra , counsel for respondent has supported the findings recorded by the Courts below.
10. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
11. In order to set up a claim of perfection of title by way of adverse possession, plaintiff has to admit the claim the title of the original owner.
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Dagadabai (Dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Abbas alias Gulab Rustum Pinjari reported in (2017) 13 SCC 705 has held as under:
16. Fourth, the High Court erred fundamentally in observing in para 7 that, "it was not necessary for him Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-12-2025 13:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31629 4 SA-283-2011 (defendant) to first admit the ownership of the plaintiff before raising such a plea". In our considered opinion, these observations of the High Court are against the law of adverse possession. It is a settled principle of law of adverse possession that the person, who claims title over the property on the strength of adverse possession and thereby wants the Court to divest the true owner of his ownership rights over such property, is required to prove his case only against the true owner of the property. It is equally well settled that such person must necessarily first admit the ownership of the true owner over the property to the knowledge of the true owner and secondly, the true owner has to be made a party to the suit to enable the Court to decide the plea of adverse possession between the two rival claimants.
17. It is only thereafter and subject to proving other material conditions with the aid of adequate evidence on the issue of actual, peaceful, and uninterrupted continuous possession of the person over the suit property for more than 12 years to the exclusion of true owner with the element of hostility in asserting the rights of ownership to the knowledge of the true owner, a case of adverse possession can be held to be made out which, in turn, results in depriving the true owner of his ownership rights in the property and vests ownership rights of the property in the person who claims it.
18. In this case, we find that the defendant did not admit the plaintiff's ownership over the suit land and, therefore, the issue of adverse possession, in our opinion, could not have been tried successfully at the instance of the defendant as against the plaintiff. That apart, the defendant having claimed the ownership over the suit land by inheritance as an adopted son of Rustum and having failed to prove this ground, he was not entitled to claim the title by adverse possession against the plaintiff.
13. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Radheshyamlal Vs. V Sandhya and Anr. Etc. decided on 18.03.2024 in Civil Appeal No.4322 - 4324 of 2024 has held as under:
"12. Therefore, to prove the plea of adverse possession :-Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-12-2025 13:43:43
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31629 5 SA-283-2011
(a) The plaintiff must plead and prove that he was claiming possession adverse to the true owner;
(b) The plaintiff must plead and establish that the factum of his long and continuous possession was known to the true owner;
(c) The plaintiff must also plead and establish when he came into possession; and
(d) The plaintiff must establish that his possession was open and undisturbed.
It is a settled law that by pleading adverse possession, a party seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner, and therefore, there is no equity in his favour. After all, the plea is based on continuous wrongful possession for a period of more than 12 years. Therefore, the facts constituting the ingredients of adverse possession must be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff."
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Uttam Chand (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Nathu Ram (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others reported in (2020) 11 SCC 263 has held as under:
"11. In T. Anjanappa [T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa , (2006) 7 SCC 570] , this Court has set aside the finding of the High Court that the defendants claiming adverse possession do not have to prove who is the true owner. If the defendants are not sure who the true owner is, the question of them being in hostile possession as well as of denying the title of the true owner does not arise. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 574-75, paras 12-14) "12. The concept of adverse possession contemplates a hostile possession i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner. Possession to be adverse must be possession by a person who does not acknowledge the other's rights but denies them. The principle of law is firmly established that a person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed. For deciding whether the alleged acts of a person constituted adverse possession, the animus of the person Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-12-2025 13:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31629 6 SA-283-2011 doing those acts is the most crucial factor. Adverse possession is commenced in wrong and is aimed against right. A person is said to hold the property adversely to the real owner when that person in denial of the owner's right excluded him from the enjoyment of his property.
13. Possession to be adverse must be possession by a person who does not acknowledge the other's rights but denies them:
'24. It is a matter of fundamental principle of law that where possession can be referred to a lawful title, it will not be considered to be adverse. It is on the basis of this principle that it has been laid down that since the possession of one co-owner can be referred to his status as co-owner, it cannot be considered adverse to other co-owners.' (See Vidya Devi v. Prem Prakash [Vidya Devi v. Prem Prakash, (1995) 4 SCC 496] , SCC p.
504, para 24.)
14. Adverse possession is that form of possession or occupancy of land which is inconsistent with the title of the rightful owner and tends to extinguish that person's title. Possession is not held to be adverse if it can be referred to a lawful title. The person setting up adverse possession may have been holding under the rightful owner's title e.g. trustees, guardians, bailiffs or agents.
Such persons cannot set up adverse possession:
'14. ... Adverse possession means a [hostile possession] which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65 [of the Limitation Act] burden is on the defendants to prove affirmatively. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person, constitute adverse possession, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. The person who bases his title on Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-12-2025 13:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31629 7 SA-283-2011 adverse possession, therefore, must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed.
15. Where possession can be referred to a lawful title, it will not be considered to be adverse. The reason being that a person whose possession can be referred to a lawful title will not be permitted to show that his possession was hostile to another's title. One who holds possession on behalf of another, does not by mere denial of that other's title make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute of limitation. Therefore, a person who enters into possession having a lawful title, cannot divest another of that title by pretending that he had no title at all. (See Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant [Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant, (1995) 2 SCC 543] , SCC p. 554, paras 14-15.)'"
15. In Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao [Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao v. Galla Jani Kamma, (2008) 15 SCC 150] , the payment of tax receipts and mere possession for some years was found insufficient to claim adverse possession. It was held that if according to the defendant, the plaintiff was not the true owner, his possession hostile to the plaintiff's title will not be sufficient. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 158, para 19) "19. The defendant claimed that he had perfected his title by adverse possession by being in open, continuous and hostile possession of the suit property from 1957. He also produced some tax receipts showing that he has paid the taxes in regard to the suit land. Some tax receipts also showed that he paid the tax on behalf of someone else. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, both the courts have entered a concurrent finding that the defendant did not establish adverse possession, and that mere possession for some years was not sufficient to claim adverse possession, unless such possession was hostile possession, denying the title of the true owner. The courts have pointed out Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-12-2025 13:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31629 8 SA-283-2011 that if according to the defendant, the plaintiff was not the true owner, his possession hostile to the plaintiff's title will not be sufficient and he had to show that his possession was also hostile to the title and possession of the true owner. After detailed analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court and the High Court also held [Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao v. Galla Janikamma, 2006 SCC OnLine AP 842 :
(2009) 3 ALD 416] that the appellant was only managing the properties on behalf of the plaintiff and his occupation was not hostile possession."
16. In Brijesh Kumar v. Shardabai [Brijesh Kumar v. Shardabai , (2019) 9 SCC 369 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 509] , the Court held as under: (SCC p. 374, para 13) "13. Adverse possession is hostile possession by assertion of a hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner as held in M. Venkatesh [M. Venkatesh v. BDA, (2015) 17 SCC 1 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 387] . The respondent had failed to establish peaceful, open and continuous possession demonstrating a wrongful ouster of the rightful owner. It thus involved question of facts and law. The onus lay on the respondent to establish when and how he came into possession, the nature of his possession, the factum of possession known and hostile to the other parties, continuous possession over 12 years which was open and undisturbed. The respondent was seeking to deny the rights of the true owner. The onus therefore lay upon the respondent to establish possession as a fact coupled with that it was open, hostile and continuous to the knowledge of the true owner. The respondent-plaintiff failed to discharge the onus. Reference may also be made to Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao [Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 452] , on adverse possession observing as follows: (SCC p. 322, para 15) '15. Animus possidendi as is well known is a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. Mere possession does not ripen into possessory title until the possessor holds the property adverse to the title of the true owner Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-12-2025 13:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31629 9 SA-283-2011 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 that possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour as he is trying to 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. The plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law.' "
17. As to whether the plaintiff can claim title on the basis of adverse possession, this Court in a judgment Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur [ Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur , (2019) 8 SCC 729 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 453] has held as under:
(SCC p. 777, para 60) "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 synonymous 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 large the 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-12-2025 13:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31629 10 SA-283-2011 possession."
18. The matter has been examined by a Constitution Bench in M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5 J.) v. Suresh Das [M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5 J.) v. Suresh Das , (2020) 1 SCC 1] wherein, it has been held that a plea of adverse possession is founded on the acceptance that ownership of the property vests in another, against whom the claimant asserts possession adverse to the title of the other. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 703-706, paras 1142- 1143 & 1147-1150) "1142. A plea of adverse possession is founded on the acceptance 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, therefore, the plaintiffs in Suit 4 ought to be cognizant of the fact that any claim of adverse possession against the Hindus or the temple would amount to an acceptance of a title in the latter. Dr Dhavan has submitted that this plea is a subsidiary or alternate plea upon which it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to stand in the event that their main plea on title is held to be established on evidence. It becomes 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 Para 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-12-2025 13:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31629 11 SA-283-2011 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 cogent basis has been made out in the pleadings and established in the evidence.
*** 1147. In Supt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja [Supt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, (1979) 4 SCC 274 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 1038] , R.S. Sarkaria, J. speaking for a three- Judge Bench of this Court noted that the concept of possession is "polymorphous" embodying both a right (the right to enjoy) and a fact (the real intention). The learned Judge held: (SCC p. 278, para 13) '13. ... It is impossible to work out a completely logical and precise definition of "possession" uniformly applicable to all situations in the contexts of all statutes. Dias and Hughes in their book on Jurisprudence say that if a topic ever suffered from too much theorising it is that of "possession". Much of this difficulty and confusion is (as pointed out in Salmond's Jurisprudence, 12th Edn., 1966) caused by the fact that possession is not purely a legal concept. "Possession", implies a right and a fact; the right to enjoy annexed to the right of property and the fact of the real intention. It involves power of control and intent to control. (See Dias and Hughes, ibid.)' These observations were made in the context of possession in Section 29(b) of the Arms Act, 1959.
1148. In P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy [P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy, 1957 SCR 195 :
AIR 1957 SC 314] , Jagannadhadas, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench of this Court dwelt on the "classical requirement" of adverse possession: (AIR pp. 317-18, para 4) '4 . Now, the ordinary classical requirement of adverse possession is that it should be nec vi Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-12-2025 13:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31629
12 SA-283-2011 nec clam nec precario. (See Secy. of State for India in Council v. Debendra Lal Khan [Secy. of State for India in Council v.
Debendra Lal Khan, 1933 SCC OnLine PC 65 : (1933-34) 61 IA 78] IA at p. 82.) The possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor.' The Court cited the following extract from U.N. Mitra's Tagore Law Lectures on the Law of Limitation and Prescription: (AIR p. 319, para 7) '7. ... "An adverse holding is an actual and exclusive appropriation of land commenced and continued under a claim of right, either under an openly avowed claim, or under a constructive claim (arising from the acts and circumstances attending the appropriation), to hold the land against him (sic) who was in possession. (Angell, Sections 390 and 398). It is the intention to claim adversely accompanied by such an invasion of the rights of the opposite party as gives him a cause of action which constitutes adverse possession." ' [ 6th Edn., Vol. I, Lecture VI, at p. 159] This Court held: (AIR p. 319, para 7) '7. ... Consonant with this principle the commencement of adverse possession, in favour of a person implies that the person is in actual possession, at the time, with a notorious hostile claim of exclusive title, to repel which, the true owner would then be in a position to maintain an action. It would follow that whatever may be the animus or intention of a person wanting to acquire title by adverse possession his adverse possession cannot commence until he obtains actual possession with the requisite animus.' 1149. In Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Union of India [Karnataka Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-12-2025 13:43:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31629 13 SA-283-2011 Board of Wakf v. Union of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779] , S. Rajendra Babu, J. speaking for a two-Judge Bench held that: (SCC p. 785, para 11) '11. ... Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and
(e) his possession was open and undisturbed.' The ingredients must be set up in the pleadings and proved in evidence. There can be no proof sans pleadings and pleadings without evidence will not establish a case in law. 1150. In Annakili v. A. Vedanayagam [Annakili v. A. Vedanayagam, (2007) 14 SCC 308] , this Court emphasised that mere possession of land would not ripen into a possessory title. The possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. Moreover, he must continue in that capacity for the period prescribed under the Limitation Act."
(emphasis in original)"
19. The Supreme Court in the case of Narasamma & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnappa (dead) through Lrs decided on 26/08/2020 in Civil Appeal No.2710/2010 has held as under:-
"32. In Karnataka Board of Wakf case, it has been clearly set out that a plaintiff filing a title over the property must specifically plead it. When such a plea of adverse possession is projected, it is inherent in the nature of it that someone else is the owner of the property. In that context, it was observed in para 12 that "....the pleas on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced...."
33. The aforesaid judgment in turn relied upon the judgment in Mohan Lal (Deceased) Thr. LRs., which observed in para 4 as under:
"4. As regards the first plea, it is inconsistent with the second plea.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-12-2025 13:43:43
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31629 14 SA-283-2011 Having come into possession under the agreement, he must disclaim his right thereunder and plead and prove assertion of his independent hostile adverse possession to the knowledge of the transferor or his successor in title or interest and that the latter had acquiesced to his illegal possession during the entire period of 12 years, i.e., upto completing the period of his title by prescription nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. Since the appellant's claim is founded on Section 53-A, it goes without saying that he admits by implication that he came into possession of the land lawfully under the agreement and continued to remain in possession till date of the suit. Thereby the plea of adverse possession is not available to the appellant."
34. In order to establish adverse possession an inquiry is required to be made into the starting point of such adverse possession and, thus, when the recorded owner got dispossessed would be crucial."
20. In the present case, plaintiff had claimed that his father had purchased the property from Rukmani Devi but because of financial constraints, the sale deed could not be executed. Later on Rukmani Devi expired, but it is also the case of the plaintiff that at the time of oral sale, the possession of property was also handed over by Rukmani Devi to father of plaintiff. If that is so, then it is clear that plaintiff had clearly claimed that possession of his father or the plaintiff is permissive. It is well established principle of law that as per the provision of section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, the sale would not be complete unless and until a registered sale deed in respect of a property worth more than Rs, 100/- is executed. Admittedly, in this case there is no is no sale deed at all. Since plaintiff himself has claimed that his father was placed in permissive possession, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that plaintiff was ever in hostile and open possession of the property in dispute.Furthermore, plaintiff has also tried to set up his claim by claiming that he is in possession in the capacity of a Bhumiswami because by order dated 22-2-1997, Tahsildar had also recorded his name in the revenue records as Bhumiswami. However, said order has also already been set aside.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-12-2025 13:43:43NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31629 15 SA-283-2011
21. As already pointed out, if a person wants to take a ground of adverse possession, he has to admit the title of the true owner. If a person claims himself to be the owner, then he cannot be permitted to take an alternative plea of adverse possession. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. Even otherwise, this Court has also independently considered the submissions made by counsel for appellant and do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below.
22. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
23. Accordingly, judgment and decree dated 15/1/2011 passed by III Additional District Judge, Vidisha in Civil Appeal No. 22A/2010 and judgment and decree dated 20/ 11/2009 passed by IV Civil Judge Class II, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 29A/2009, are hereby affirmed.
24. Appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE (and) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 09-12-2025 13:43:43