Judgment ( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment-decree dated 29-3-90 passed by ADJ, Khurai in C. A. No. 36-A/83-43-A/89 affirming the judgment-decree dated 30-8-83 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class-II, Khurai in C. S. No. 196-A/82, plaintiff/appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. ( 2. ) THE appeal has been heard on the following substantial question of law: Whether the finding regarding adverse possession of defendants with respect to the suit land, is perverse ? ( 3. ) LATE Ganesh the original plaintiff was son of Smt. Tijiya. Vide Patta dated 1-4-1943 Khasra No. 554/27 area 2. 78 sq. ft. Khurai District Sagar was allotted to late Tijiya. Adjacent land Khasra No. 554/28 was allotted to predecessor of defendant/respondents. On portion of land shown in the plaint map by letters CGFH forming part of Khasra No. 554/27, defendant/respondents constructed their house and perfected title by adverse possession, as such late Tijiya did not initiate any proceeding against them. The area shown by letters DEFG remained in possession of late Tijiya. This portion of land (hereinafter be referred to as "the suit land") remained in occupation of late Tijiya and was used for Nistar purpose. Sometime in the month of June, July, 1979, defendant/ respondents on their wall existing on CGFH opened a door towards the suit land (DEFG) and sought permission of plaintiff/appellant for temporary use of suit land (DEFG ). On 27-9-80 defendant/respondents ultimately dispossessed plaintiff/appellants from the suit land (DEFG) and constructed a verandah on a portion of it. Since then defendant/respondents have started using the suit land as courtyard of their house existing on Khasra No. 554/28. Therefore, the original plaintiff late Ganesh instituted C. S. No. 196/82 before the Civil Judge Class-II, Khurai for restoration of possession of suit land. The suit was resisted by the defendant/respondents stating inter alia that adjoining land forming part of Khasra No. 554/28 was allotted to predecessor in title of defendant/respondents. Since the time of allotment itself predecessor in title of defendant/respondents constructed his house and the suit land shown by letters DEFG remained in exclusive possession of late Saru real brother of defendant/respondent Kunjilal. Late Tijiya never remained in possession of the suit land nor it was ever used by her and plaintiff/appellants. Since the time of allotment itself predecessor in title of defendant/respondents constructed his house and the suit land shown by letters DEFG remained in exclusive possession of late Saru real brother of defendant/respondent Kunjilal. Late Tijiya never remained in possession of the suit land nor it was ever used by her and plaintiff/appellants. In fact on 27-9-80 original plaintiff late Ganesh picked up a quarrel with the defendant/respondents and inflicted injuries to one of the female members of the family of defendant/respondents. A report accordingly was lodged with the police. To create a pressure the original plaintiff late Ganesh instituted a suit stating inter alia that the defendant/respondents dispossessed him from the suit land (DEFG ). The Civil Judge in C. S. No. 196-A/02 vide judgment dated 30-8-83 held that defendant/respondents remained in exclusive possession of the suit land and it was being used as courtyard of their house existing on Khasra No. 554/28. As such, dismissed the suit for restoration of possession. Being aggrieved, defendant/appellants preferred C. A. No. 36-A/83-43-A/89 before the ADJ, Khurai. The Court below affirming the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Civil Judge dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 29th of March, 1990. ( 4. ) THE Court below vide impugned judgment in Para 13 held that defendant/respondents since 20-25 years prior to the institution of suit were using the suit land as courtyard of their house existing on Khasra No. 554/28. As such have perfected their title by an adverse possession. In Abubakar Abdul Inamdar (dead) by L. Rs. and Ors. v. Harun Abdul Imamdar and Ors. AIR1996 SC 112 , JT1995 (7 )SC 179 , 1995 (5 )SCALE87 , (1995 )5 SCC612 , [1995 ]supp3 SCR172 , it has been held that plea as to adverse possession must specifically be raised. Where plea as to adverse possession has not been raised, no amount of proof can substitute pleadings which are the foundation of claim of a litigating party. Reading the written statement as a whole the pleading on the part of defendant/respondents would state that since the time of Tijiya herself predecessor in title of defendant/respondents having constructed a house on Khasra No. 554/28 was using the suit land (DEFG) as courtyard. Tijiya Bai died sometime in the year 1965. Reading the written statement as a whole the pleading on the part of defendant/respondents would state that since the time of Tijiya herself predecessor in title of defendant/respondents having constructed a house on Khasra No. 554/28 was using the suit land (DEFG) as courtyard. Tijiya Bai died sometime in the year 1965. Even after the death of Tijiya, defendant/respondent remained in possession of the suit land (DEFG) as the same was being used as courtyard of their house existing on Khasra No. 554/28. In Para 9 of their written statement defendant/respondents specifically asserted that in case plaintiff/appellants are found to the owner of the suit land, in that case also the defendant/respondents being in possession for more than 12 years time have perfected their title and the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for restoration of the possession would be barred by time. On this plea the parties went into trial. P. W. 1 Ganesh has stated that in the month of June, July, 1979, defendant/respondents dispossessed him from the suit land. Prior to that it was being used by him for the purpose of Nistar. The suit land was also being used in the same manner by late Tijiya Bai to whom patta of Khasra No. 554/27 was granted. D. W. 1 Ramcharan has stated that on adjoining land Khasra No. (554/28) the house was constructed during the life time of late Tijiya Bai, mother of P. W. 1 Ganesh. The suit land adjacent to their house was used as courtyard of the house existing on Khasra No. 554/28. The verandah on a portion of it was constructed much before June, July, 1979. This statement of D. W. 1 Ramcharan is fully corroborated from the statements of D. W. 2 Harlal, D. W. 3 Alam. Reading cross-examination of P. W. 1 Ganesh, P. W. 2 Ram Sahay and P. W. 3 Chukhrushah the Courts below held that the suit land (DEFG) in fact was being used as courtyard of the house existing on Khasra No. 554/28. ( 5. ) ON facts and in the circumstances Courts below rightly held that defendant/respondents remained in exclusive possession of suit land being used as courtyard of their house existing on Khasra No. 554/28, as such have perfected their title by adverse possession and the suit seeking relief of restoration of possession of presentation was barred by time. ( 5. ) ON facts and in the circumstances Courts below rightly held that defendant/respondents remained in exclusive possession of suit land being used as courtyard of their house existing on Khasra No. 554/28, as such have perfected their title by adverse possession and the suit seeking relief of restoration of possession of presentation was barred by time. The aforesaid findings of fact arrived at by Courts below are neither perverse nor illegal. ( 6. ) ON the basis of decisions of this Court in Kirti Bai v. Amrit 1996 (1) MPWN 7 and Madanlal v. Devilal 1997 (1) MPWN 9, it has been contended that the Civil Judge before proceeding with the suit should have directed demarcation of boundary of Khasra Nos. 554/27 and 554/28. There being no dispute of boundaries of aforesaid Khasra Nos. , question of demarcation never arises. Defendant/respondents contended that the suit land always remained in their use-occupation as courtyard of house existing on Khasra No. 554/28. ( 7. ) CONSEQUENTLY, affirming the judgment and decree passed by Courts below, appeal fails and is dismissed. Plaintiff/appellants shall bear their costs and pay the cost of defendant/respondents. Counsel fee as per rules or certificate (whichever is less ).