Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishwanath Singh vs Munni Bai Kewat on 12 September, 2019
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
-:1:-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, J
F.A.No.846/2012
Vishwanath Singh
Vs.
Munni Bai Kewat & Another
=================
Shri Atul Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri Shivam Hazare, learned P.L. for the respondent No.2/State.
==================================
JUDGMENT
Reserved on 26/08/2019 Delivered on 12/09/2019 This appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 01/08/2012 passed by I Additional District Judge, District Shahdol in Civil Suit No.08-A/2011, whereby learned ADJ decreed the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff Munni Bai Kewat and declared her owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.96/1, area 0.202 hectare situated at village Jhagarha, Tehsil Sohagpur (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land") and directed the appellant/defendant to give possession of the suit land within two months to the respondent No.1/plaintiff and not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over suit land after giving its possession to the respondent No.1/plaintiff.
2. It is notable here that plaintiff Smt. Munnibai had filed Civil Suit No.08-A/2011 against appellant Vishwanath Singh regarding suit land and also filed Civil Suit No.10-A/2011 regarding another land against Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 12/09/2019 17:41:09 -:2:- Harendra Singh, Jitendra Singh and Bhupendra Singh on the same ground. Learned trial Court consolidated both the suits and tried them jointly and disposed of both the suits by a common judgement, but appellant Vishwanath Singh, Harendra Singh, Jitendra Singh and Bhupendra Singh filed two separate appeals i.e. F.A. No.846/2012 and F.A. No.844.2012 respectively against the judgement of the trial Court. So both the appeals are being decided by this Court by the separate judgements. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent No.1 is the plaintiff of the civil suit out of which this appeal arises. The appellant and respondent no.1 shall be referred to as described in the suit.
3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Munni Bai Kewat filed a Civil Suit No.08-A/2011 for declaration, possession and permanent injunction regarding suit land averring that earlier suit land was owned by her Grand-Father Mangal Kewat. He had two sons Goje Kewat and Sarju Kewat. The name of Goje Kewat's wife was Basanti @ Rani Bai and the name of Sarju Kewat's wife was Phoolbai Kewat. Respondent No.1 is the daughter of Sarju Kewat and Phoolbai Kewat. She further averred that her father Sraju Kewat died in the year 1972-73 when she was aged about 2-3 years. Her mother Phoolbai Kewat died in the year 1971. Goje Kewat and Basanti Bai had no offspring, due to which Goje Kewat and Basanti Bai nurtured her and her marriage was also performed by them. Earlier in the revenue record, the suit land was recorded in the name of Mangal Kewat and after his death said land was mutated in the name of Goje Kewat and his mother Jhini Kewat (widow of late Mangal). Goje Kewat died in the year 1998 and Jhini Kewat died in the year 1986. After the death of Goje Kewat and his wife Basanti @ Rani Bai and plaintiff's father Sarju Kewat, she is the sole owner of the suit land. Defendant Vishwanath Singh wrongly got his name mutated in the revenue record on the suit land, while the suit land was in possession of the plaintiff and she was doing the agricultural work over the suit land. In the year 2007 defendant forcibly occupied the suit land and wrongly obstructed the plaintiff from using the suit land, therefore, she lodged the complaint against him before the competent authority and also Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 12/09/2019 17:41:09 -:3:- filed an application under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before the Tehsildar, Budhar. When plaintiff obtained copies of the revenue record of suit land, she came to know that in the revenue record the name of defendant is recorded as owner on the suit land, therefore, she filed an appeal before the SDO, Sohagpur (case No.11/Appeal/10-11) and vide order dated 27/11/2010 SDO, Sohagpur allowed the appeal and set aside the order of mutation passed by Tehsildar, Budhar and also directed to record the name of plaintiff as owner of the suit land. In the year 2007 defendant forcibly occupied the suit land. So plaintiff be declared owner of the suit land and defendant be directed to give possession of the suit land to plaintiff and an injection be also issued against the defendant that after giving possession of the suit land to plaintiff the defendant would not interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over suit land.
4. Defendant Vishwanath Singh in his written statement denied the plaintiff's claim and averred that in the revenue Case No.16-A/2006-07 filed by the plaintiff she had claimed that she was the daughter of Goje Kewat, while in this case plaintiff has claimed that she is the daughter of Sarju Kewat, which is contradictory. Plaintiff is neither the daughter of Goje Kewat, nor Sarju Kewat and to get the suit land she falsely pleaded that she is the daughter of Sarju Kewat. Mangal Kewat was not the owner of the suit land. The suit land was never recorded in the name of Mangal Kewat. Suit land was the self acquired property of Goje Kewat. Plaintiff falsely stating that she is the heir of Goje Kewat, wrongly got her name mutated into the suit land in the revenue record and only on that basis it cannot be said that plaintiff is the owner of the suit land. Defendant is in possession of the suit land continuously since 1983. Defendant purchased the suit land from Goje Kewat vide unregistered sale deed dated 08/12/1983 prepared on ordinary paper and got possession of the suit land from Goje Kewat on the same day. Thereafter, Goje Kewat got the name of defendant mutated in the revenue record on the suit land, so the defendant is the owner of the suit land. Even otherwise defendant is in possession of the suit land since 1983 in the knowledge of plaintiff as owner. The plaintiff has never cultivated the suit Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 12/09/2019 17:41:09 -:4:- land and the suit land had already been transferred in the name of defendant on 09/03/1993, so he became the owner of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession. The plaintiff's suit is time barred and she is not entitled to get any relief because defendant has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession also. On the basis of said averment defendant prayed for rejection of the suit.
5. Learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of both the parties framed the following issues:--
(i) Whether the suit land was owned and possessed by the Mangal Kevat?
or The suit land was the self-acquired property of Goje Kevat ?
(ii) Whether plaintiff Munni Kevat is the daughter of Sarju Kewat and Phool Bai Kevat ?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff got the suit land in succession?
(iv) Whether Goje Kevat had sold suit land to defendant Vishwanath on 08/12/1983 and also handed over the possession of the suit land to him ?
(v) Whether defendant Vishwanath has acquired ownership of the suit land by adverse possession ?
(vi) Whether defendant Vishwanath dispossess the plaintiff Smt. Munni Bai from the Suit land in July 2007 ?
(vii) Whether the suit is time barred ?
(viii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get position of suit land from the defendant ?
(ix) Relief and cost ?
6. After recording the evidence and hearing final arguments of both the parties learned trial Court vide judgment dated 01/08/2012 decreed the suit filed by plaintiff holding that the suit land was earlier owned by Mangal Kewat. He had two sons Goje Kewat and Sarju Kewat. Plaintiff Munnibai is the daughter of Sarju Kewat. After the death of Goje Kewat and Sarju Kewat, plaintiff became the owner of the suit land by succession. Learned trial Court also held that the defendant failed to prove that the suit land was the self-acquired property of Goje Kewat and defendant purchased the suit land from Goje Kewat by sale deed dated 08/12/83. He also failed to Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 12/09/2019 17:41:09 -:5:- prove that he became the owner of the suit land by adverse possession or suit of the plaintiff is time-barred. Based on the above findings, the trial Court declared the plaintiff owner of the suit land and also directed the defendant to give the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. Being aggrieved from that judgment the defendant filed this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that plaintiff is the daughter of the Sarju Kewat. In the revenue Case No.16-A/2006-07 filed by the plaintiff she claimed that she is the daughter of Goje Kewat, as mentioned in her application (ExP/12). Even in the revenue record (Ex.P/27 to Ex.P/ 31) the name of her father is mentioned as Goje Kewat, while in this case plaintiff has claimed that she is the daughter of Sarju Kewat, which clearly show that plaintiff has falsely pleaded that she is the daughter of Sarju Kewat to get the suit land. Defendant did not file the sale deed because the said sale deed had been written on a simple paper and was an unregistered document, so it was not admissible in evidence. The plaintiff herself has filed the copy of order-sheet of Revenue Case No. A6/94-95 dated 23/03/95 (Ex.P/33). From perusal of that order sheet it is apparent that before Naib Tehsildar, Goje Kewat admitted the fact that he had sold the suit land to defendant and he also submitted that he had no objection in recording the name of the defendant over the suit land in revenue records. That order sheet also bears the thumb impression of Goje Kevat, which shows that Goje Kevat had appeared before Naib Tehsildar and admitted the fact that he had sold the land to defendant in the year 1983 and also handed over the possession of the land to defendant. On the consent of Goje Kewat, Naib Tehsildar ordered to record the name of defendant in the revenue record on the suit land in place of Goje Kewat, which shows that Goje Kewat sold the suit land to appellant in the year 1983 and gave the possession of the suit land to him and since then defendant continuously is in possession of the suit land. Even on the suit land, the name of defendant was mutated in the year 1995 vide order dated 23/03/95 (Ex.P/33). This fact was well known to plaintiff and she also knew the fact that the defendant is in possession of the suit land since 1983, Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 12/09/2019 17:41:09 -:6:- but she filed the Civil Suit in the year 2010. So on the basis of adverse possession also defendant became owner of the suit land. Learned counsel of the defendant further submitted that the plaintiff never challenged or disputed the fact that Goje Kewat did not give any consent to transfer the suit land in the name of defendant and also not challenged the thumb impression of Goje Kevat on the order-sheet. Possession of the defendant over suit land is also proved from the revenue record i.e. Khasra for the year 1993-94 (Ex.P/7), 1990-91 to 1994-95 (Ex.P/8), 1998-99 to 2000 (Ex.P/9), 2010-11 (Ex.P/18), 2003 (Ex.P/27), 2004 (Ex.P/28) and 2008-09 (Ex.P/30) in which the name of defendant is mentioned as owner and possessor of the suit land.
8. Learned counsel of the defendant further submitted that the learned trial Court only on the basis that defendant did not file any document relating to the sale and transfer of suit land held that defendant failed to prove that he purchased the suit land from Goje Kewat, but this fact is proved from the documents produced by the plaintiff herself. For claiming declaration, limitation is of three years, while from the application filed by the plaintiff before Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 250 of the MPLRC (Ex.P/11 to Ex.P/16) it is clear that plaintiff filed said application on 19/12/2006, while plaintiff filed Civil Suit on 22/02/2010, so the plaintiff's suit for declaration is clearly time barred. Although, plaintiff averred that defendant occupied the suit land in the year 2007, but from her statement it is clear that she was never in possession of the suit land. This shows that plaintiff filed the suit showing false cause of action. Learned trial Court without appreciating all these facts wrongly decreed the plaintiff's suit.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that Parsadi Kewat (PW/4) who was eighty years old in his statement has clearly stated that plaintiff is the daughter of late Sarju Kewat. Even, defendant Suresh Singh (DW/2) in Para-8 of his cross-examination admitted that name of Goje's wife is Rani @ Basanti Bai and Goje had no issue. The name of Goje's brother was Sarju Kewat and plaintiff Munnibai is the daughter of Sarju Kewat, so from the statement of defendant witness itself it is proved Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 12/09/2019 17:41:09 -:7:- that plaintiff Munnibai is the daughter of Sarju Kewat. From the copy of record of rights of the year (samvat 1983-1996 = year 1926-1939) (Ex.P/2) and in the Khasra of the year 1954-55 (Ex.P/3) it is clear that earlier suit land was recorded in the name of Mangal Kevat. Even after the death of Mangal Kevat disputed land was mutated in the name of Goje Kevat and his mother Jhini Kewat (widow of Mangal Kewat) in the revenue record as appeared from the copy of record of right of the year 1975 (Ex.P/1) and Khsara entries of the year 1980-85 (Ex.P/4 & Ex.P/5). From above mentioned documents it is clearly proved that the suit land was earlier owned by Mangal Kevat. Plaintiff is the sole heir of Goje Kevat and Sarju Kevat (sons of the Mangal Kevat). So learned trial Court rightly held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land.
10. He further submitted that the case of defendant is that he purchased the suit land from Goje Kewat vide unregistered sale deed dated 08/12/1983 prepared on ordinary paper and got possession of the suit land from Goje Kewat on the same day. Thereafter, Goje Kewat got the name of defendant mutated in the revenue record on the suit land, so the defendant is the owner of the suit land. Defendant also took the plea that he is in possession of the suit land since 1983 in the knowledge of plaintiff as owner. The suit land was also mutated in the name of defendant vide order dated 09/03/1993, so he became the owner of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession also. However, defendant did not produce any documentary evidence to show that Goje Kewat sold the suit land to defendant. Merely on the basis that plaintiff produced the copy of order sheet of Revenue Case no. A6/94-95 dated 23/03/95 (Ex.P/33)it can not be said that plaintiff relied on that document. On the contrary, plaintiff filed an appeal against that order before S.D.O. Budhar who set aside that order. The burden of proving the fact that Goje Kewat sold the suit land to defendant and he admitted this fact before Naib Tehsildar in mutation proceedings by which name of defendant was recorded in the suit land was on defendant, but he did not produce any evidence to prove the fact that Goja Kevat had appeared before the revenue Court during the proceedings of Revenue Case No.A6/94-95 and the thumb Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 12/09/2019 17:41:09 -:8:- impression on the order sheet (Ex.P/33) is of Goje Kevat. Moreover, a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can be affected only by a deed of conveyance. In the absence of a deed of conveyance (which must be duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred. So for the sake of argument even if it is assumed, though it is not proved, that Goje Kewat sold suit land to defendant, by a sale deed which was written on simple paper defendant cannot became the owner of the suit land on the basis of that sale deed.
11. He further submitted that claim by adverse possession has two basic elements i.e. the possession of the claimant should be adverse to the true owner of the property and the claimant must continue to remain in possession for a period of twelve years thereafter. For proving the ownership on the basis of adverse possession it has to be proved that appellant is in possession of the suit land continuously for the last 12 years in the knowledge of the true owner of the suit land, while it is not the case of defendant that plaintiff is the owner of the suit land, so possession of the defendant in the knowledge of plaintiff has no meaning and only on that basis he cannot become the owner of the suit land by adverse possession. Even otherwise the case of the defendant is that he came into the possession of the suit land because Goje Kewat sold suit land to him, which clearly shows that defendant got the possession of the suit land with the consent of Goje Kewat. The defendant did not aver in his written statement as to when his possession became adverse on the suit land against the true owner of the suit land. So learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in finding that the defendant failed to prove that defendant became the owner of the suit land and rightly decreed the plaintiff's suit. Hence appeal be rejected.
12. Points for determination in this appeal are that :-
(i) Whether plaintiff Munni Bai is the daughter of Sarju Kewat ?
(ii) Whether the suit land was ancestral property of the plaintiff Munni Bai and after the death of her father Sarju Kewat and uncle Goje Kewat, she became owner of the suit land ?
(iii) Whether defendant Vishvnath purchased the suit land from Goje Kewat by sale deed dated 08/12/83 and got possession Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 12/09/2019 17:41:09 -:9:- of the suit land from Goje Kewat on the same date, so he is the owner of the suit land on the basis of said sale deed ?
(iv) Whether defendant became owner of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession ?
(v) Whether the suit of plaintiff is time barred ?
13. Plaintiff Munni Bai Kewat (PW-1) in her statement deposed that she is the daughter of Sarju Kewat. In this regard her statement is also corroborated by the statement of Parsadi Kewat (PW/4). Even the defendant witness Suresh Singh (DW/2) also in para-8 of his cross-examination admitted that plaintiff Munni Bai Kewat is the daughter of Sarju Kewat and name of the wife of Goje Kewat was Basanti Bai. Goje Kewat had no offspring. Although in the application (Ex.P/12) filed by the plaintiff in the revenue Case No.16-A/2006-07 she mentioned her father's name Goje Kewat, and in the revenue record ( Ex.P/27 to Ex.P/ 31) the name of her father is mentioned Goje Kewat. But plaintiff has clarified this fact and deposed that She was nurtured by Goje Kevat, so in the revenue record the name of her father is mentioned as Goje Kevat, while she was the daughter of Sarju Kevat. So this discrepancy has no effect and on that basis, the statement of Munnibai (PW-1) that she is the daughter of Sarju Kevat can not be disbelieved. So, in the considered opinion of this Court learned trial did not commit any mistake in holding that plaintiff Munni Bai Kewat is the daughter of Sarju Kewat.
14. Munni Bai Kewat (PW-1) in her statement also deposed that the suit land earlier belonged to her Grand-Father Mangal Kewat. In the copy of record of rights of (samvat 1983-1996 = year 1926-1939) (Ex.P/2) and in the Khasra of the year 1954-55 (Ex.P/3) the name of Mangal Kevat is mentioned as lessee of suit land. After the death of Mangal Kevat, suit land was mutated in the name of Goje Kevat and his mother Jhini Kewat (widow of Mangal Kewat) in the revenue record as appeared from the copy of record of right of the year 1975 (Ex.P/1) and Khsara entries of the year 1980-85 (Ex.P/4 & Ex.P/5). There is no reason to disbelieve these entries. From this it is clearly Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 12/09/2019 17:41:09 -:10:- proved that the suit land was earlier owned by Mangal Kevat. It is undisputed that Mangal Kewat had two sons namely Goje Kewat and Mangal Kewat. The name of Mangal's wife was Jhini and Goje Kewat's wief was Basanti @ Ranibai.
15. Munnibai also deposed that her father Sarju Kewat died in the year 1972-73 when she was aged about 2-3 years. Her mother Phoolbai Kewat died in the year 1971. Goje Kewat and Basanti Bai had no offspring, due to which Goje Kewat and Basanti Bai nurtured her and her marriage was also performed by them. The defendant witness Suresh (DW-2) himself admitted that he knew Goje Kewat, his wife Basanti and his brother Sarju Kewat, who have died. The daughter of Sarju Kewat is Munni Bai Kewat.
Goje Kewat had no issue. So it is also proved that plaintiff Munni Bai Kewat who is the grand daughter of late Mangal Kevat is the sole hair of late Goje Kewat and Sarju Kevat and after the death of Goje Kewat and Sarju Kevat and their wifes she become sole owner of suit land.
16. Defendant claimed ownership of the suit land on two grounds; firstly that he purchased the suit land from Goje Kewat by sale deed dated 08/12/83. But he did not produce any sale deed in support of his claim. In the absence of said sale deed it cannot be said that the defendant purchased said land from Goje Kewat vide sale deed dated 08/12/83. Moreover, a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can be affected only by a deed of conveyance. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 makes deed of conveyance compulsorily registrable. A transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in immovable property can be transferred as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2009 SC 3077. So for the sake of argument even if it is assumed, though it is not proved, that Goje Kewat sold suit land to defendant, by a sale deed which was written on simple paper, defendant cannot became the owner of the suit land on the basis of that sale deed.
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 12/09/2019 17:41:09 -:11:-17. Although, learned counsel for the defendant also submitted that from the order-sheet of the revenue case No.A6/94-95 (Ex.P/33) it is apparent that before Nayab Tehsildar, Budhar Goje Kewat clearly admitted that he sold the suit land in favour of defendant and also gave possession of the suit land to defendant, which clearly shows that Goje Kewat sold the suit land to defendant. But, that argument also has no force. Only on the basis of said admission defendant cannot become owner of the suit land without the registered sale deed.
18. As far as the claim of the defendant that he has become the owner of the suit land by adverse possession is concerned, learned trial Court held that plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land. Plaintiff has not challenged these findings of trial Court by filing cross appeal. Even otherwise otherwise plaintiff in his cross examination clearly admitted that earlier suit land was in the possession of Goje Kewat. She did not cultivate the suit land and she was never in possession of the suit land. So from the statement of plaintiff herself it is proved that she was never in possession of the suit land. She falsely averred in her plaint that for the first time defendant occupied the suit land in year 2007.
19. But it is settled that mere possession, howsoever long it may be, does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner and the requirement of acquisition of title by adverse possession is that such possessions are in denial of the true owners' title.
20. Apex Court in the case of Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati, (2004) 10 SCC 65 defined what is adverse possession is as under :-
"22. Every possession is not, in law, adverse possession. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title can be instituted within a period of twelve years calculated from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. By virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, on the determination of the period limited by the Act to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property stands extinguished. The process of acquisition of title by adverse possession springs into action essentially by default or inaction of the owner. A person, though having no right to enter into possession of the property of someone else, does so and continues in possession setting up Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 12/09/2019 17:41:09 -:12:- title in himself and adversely to the title of the owner, commences prescribing title on to himself and such prescription having continued for a period of twelve years, he acquires title not on his own but on account of the default or inaction on the part of the real owner, which stretched over a period of twelve years, results in extinguishing of the latter's title. It is that extinguished title of the real owner which comes to vest in the wrongdoer. The law does not intend to confer any premium on the wrongdoing of a person in wrongful possession; it pronounces the penalty of extinction of title on the person who though entitled to assert his right and remove the wrongdoer and re-enter into possession, has defaulted and remained inactive for a period of twelve years, which the law considers reasonable for attracting the said penalty. Inaction for a period of twelve years is treated by the doctrine of adverse possession as evidence of the loss of desire on the part of the rightful owner to assert his ownership and reclaim possession."
21. Apex Court in the case of T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, (2006) 7 SCC 570 at page 577 also held;-
"20. It is well-recognised proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner's title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former's hostile action.
21. The High Court has erred in holding that even if the defendants claim adverse possession, they do not have to prove who is the true owner and even if they had believed that the Government was the true owner and not the plaintiffs, the same was inconsequential. Obviously, the requirements of proving adverse possession have not been established. If the defendants are not sure who is the true owner the question of their being in hostile possession and the question of denying title of the true owner does not arise."
22. In the light of the above pronouncement of Apex Court it transpired that, to prove the title over an immovable property on the basis of adverse possession it has to be proved that appellant/defendant is in hostile possession of the suit land continuously for 12 years in the knowledge of the true owner of the property. While in this case defendant denied the fact that plaintiff Munnibai is the owner of the suit land. If the defendant is not sure Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 12/09/2019 17:41:09 -:13:- who is the true owner the question of his being in hostile possession and the question of denying title of the true owner (plaintiff Munni Bai Kewat) does not arise. Even otherwise defendant averred that he purchased the suit land from Goje Kewat of 08/12/83 and get possession of the suit land from Goje Kewat and since then he is in possession of the suit land, which clearly shows that he took possession of the suit land from Goje Kewat with his consent. He did not pleaded in his written statement that after getting possession of the suit land from Goje Kewat by his consent as to when his possession over the suit land became adverse against the true owner of the suit land. Merely on the basis of long possession it cannot be said that the defendant became owner of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession.
23. So, in the considered opinion of this Court learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in holding that the defendant also failed to prove the fact that he became the owner of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession.
24. For claiming possession of immovable property on the basis of title, the provisions of Article 65 of the Limitation Act will apply. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title can be instituted within a period of twelve years calculated from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati (supra). While in this case the defendant failed to prove the fact that his possession over suit land is adverse against the true owner of the suit land and he is in hostile possession of the suit land continuously for 12 years in the knowledge of the true owner of the property. So in the considered opinion of this Court learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in holding that the suit of plaintiff is within time.
25. In the considered opinion of this Court learned trial court did not commit any mistake in decreeing the plaintiff's suit. So the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed and the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 12/09/2019 17:41:09 -:14:-26. A decree be drawn accordingly. Parties shall bear their own cost.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) JUDGE as/ Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 12/09/2019 17:41:09