ORDER 1. Heard on admission. 2. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of petitioner/plaintiff, is directed against the order dated 1.6.2013; whereby, an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 preferred by the petitioner against the order by Civil Court, rejecting the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, has been dismissed. 3. Suit by the petitioner is for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and for permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing Khasra No.37/1 (New No.35) situated at Village Kosamghat, Jabalpur on the ground that the petitioner and respondent no.1 jointly availed the loan from respondent No. 2 and in lieu of security, the suit land was mortgaged. As per paragraph 4 of the suit plaint, the suit property i.e. Khasra No.37/1 belongs to respondent No.1, who is the owner of the said property and mortgaged along with the land bearing Khasra No. 37/2 and 38/2 which belongs to the petitioner. It is alleged that the entire outstanding of Bank was paid by the petitioner’s husband in the year 1995 and since then the petitioner is in possession of suit property and her peaceful possession having been disturbed, has led her to file the civil suit wherein an application for temporary injunction was filed. The application was dismissed by the trial Court by its order dated 16.5.2013 on a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the prima facie case. As to possession, the trial Court has returned a finding in paragraph 20 and 21 that the plaintiff has failed to prove an undisturbed, effective and long period in possession over the suit property. The appellate Court, in appeal, affirmed the findings. In paragraph 19 of the impugned order-dated 1.6.2013, the Appellate Court has returned a finding that though the plaintiff is shown to be in possession and has cultivated the suit land in the year 2012-13, but has filed to establish long settled possession : ^^ysfdu egRoiw.kZ rF; ;g gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe ij oknh dks tks vf/kiR; gS og izFke n`f”V esa cgqr iqjkuk nf’kZr ugha gksrk gS] ftl dkj.k LFkkfir vf/kiR; dh ifjf/k esa ugha vkrk gS] cfYd oknh dk fookfnr Hkwfe ij vfrØked dh gSfl;r ls dCtk gksuk izFke n`f”V esa izdV gksrk gSA^^ 4. It has been held in Parsinni v. Sukhi (1993) 4 SCC 375 that burden of prove lies on the party claiming adverse possession. He has to plead and prove that his possession must be “nec vi, nec clam, nec precario”, i.e. peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. Mere vague or doubtful assertions that claimant has been in adverse possession will not be sufficient (See also, R. Hanumaiah v. State of Karnataka (2010) 5 SCC 203 ). 5. Furthermore, it has been held in Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subbarao (2010) 14 SCC 316 that animus possidendi as is well known is a requisite ingredient of adverse possession and mere possession does not ripen into possessory title until the possessor holds the property adverse to the title of the true owner for the said purpose. 6. In Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu 2004 (II) MPWN 25 = (2004) 1 SCC 769 , while affirming the law laid down in Puran Singh v. State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 518 , it has been observed - “9. ... The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the right owner must be settled possession, extending over a sufficiently long period of time and acquiesced to by the true owner. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. The rightful owner may re-enter and re-instate himself provided he does not use more force than is necessary. Such entry will be viewed only as resistance to an intrusion upon his possession which has never been lost. A stray act of trespass, or a possession which has not matured into settled possession, can be obstructed or removed by the true owner even by using necessary force. In Puran Singh’s case (supra), the Court clarified that it is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to when the possession of a trespasser can mature into settled possession. The ‘settled possession’ must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt and concealment by the trespasser. In Puran Singh’s case (supra), the Court clarified that it is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to when the possession of a trespasser can mature into settled possession. The ‘settled possession’ must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt and concealment by the trespasser. The phrase settled possession does not carry any special charm of magic in it, nor is it a ritualistic formula which can be confined in a straitjacket. An occupation of the property by a person as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual physical possession. The Court laid down the following tests which may be adopted as a working rule for determining the attributes of ‘settled possession’ : (i) that the trespasser must be in actual physical possession of the property over a sufficiently long period; (ii) that the possession must be to the knowledge (either express of implied) of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser and which contains an element of animus possidendi. The nature of possession of the trespasser would however, be a matter to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. (iii) the process of dispossession of the true owner by the trespasser must be complete and final and must be acquiesced to by the true owner; and (iv) that one of the usual tests to determine the quality of settled possession, in the case of culturable land, would be whether or not the trespasser, after having taken possession, had grown any crop. If the crop had been grown by the trespasser, then even the true owner has no right to destroy the crop grown by the trespasser and take forcible possession.” 7. In the case at hand, the petitioner/plaintiff having failed to establish prima facie that she is in settled possession of the suit property, her application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC has rightly been rejected by the trial Court as would warrant any interference. 8. Even otherwise, it is well settled that power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to correct all errors of judgment of a Court acting within limitation. It can be exercised where the order suffers from flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. 8. Even otherwise, it is well settled that power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to correct all errors of judgment of a Court acting within limitation. It can be exercised where the order suffers from flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. The Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot act as a Court of Appeal and re-appreciate the evidence [See. Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 and Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 385 ]. 9. In view whereof, petition fails and is dismissed. However, no costs.