JUDGMENT : SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.03.2011 passed by 8th Additional District Judge (FTC) Durg, CG (for short the “ADJ”) in Civil Suit No. 7-A/2007 by which suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case in brief as pleaded in the plaint are that the suit property comprised in piece of Khasra No. 168/1 (Part) area 26.23 acre, Khasra No. 169/3 (part) area 0.45 acre total area 26.68 acre situated at Village Baghera, P.H. No. 72, R.I.C. Durg-2, Tehsil and District Durg happens to be a part of large chunk of the ancestral property of the plaintiff which was partitioned as per mutual agreement between the family members on 06.10.1983. On partition, the disputed land fell in the share of defendant Nos. 2 to 6 but they never came in its possession nor any agricultural activities have been carried out by them, and thus the plaintiff is in peaceful possession from 06.10.1983 and he using the said land even now. Since the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land from 06.10.1983, he claims to have perfected his title by way of adverse possession in the year 1995. Thereafter, it is stated that on 07.08.2005 some persons tried to take forcible possession of the said land but after protest made by the plaintiff they went back. One of them told plaintiff that the defendant no. 1 has purchased the said land. Subsequently on 16.10.2005 defendant No. 1 along with certain anti social elements again came to take forcible possession of the suit land but they did not succeed in their aim. This act of defendant No. 1 made the plaintiff to lodge a report in the police station but the police did not take any action on the said report on the ground that it was a civil dispute. Thus on the ground of adverse possession the plaintiff became the title holder of the land in dispute and for that he prayed for declaration of title and permanent injunction. 3. Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement stating that the land in dispute was never in the possession of the plaintiff, and on the contrary it was always in possession of defendant Nos. 3. Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement stating that the land in dispute was never in the possession of the plaintiff, and on the contrary it was always in possession of defendant Nos. 2 to 6 from whom he purchased the same by way of registered sale deed on 03.02.2005 and subsequently it was recorded in his name in the revenue records, and thus the plaintiff cannot claim to be in adverse possession of the suit land. He further states that the plaintiff did not even pay the proper court fee. 4. Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 also filed their written statement stating that the suit land was never in possession of the plaintiff and that he did not even pay the proper court fee while filing the suit, nor did he file any revenue record showing his possession. According to them, defendant No. 1 purchased the said land by a registered sale deed and thus is in possession thereof. 5. Learned Court below framed the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the disputed land? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the disputed land since 06.10.1983? (iii) Whether on the basis of adverse possession the plaintiff has acquired the title of the disputed land? (iv) Whether defendants No. 2 and 6 have lost their title on account of adverse possession of the plaintiff? (v) Whether the sale deed of the disputed land dated 9.2.2005 is illegal and null and void as regards the plaintiff? (vi) Whether the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land has been interfered with by defendant No. 1? (vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a relief of permanent injunction against the defendants? (viii) Whether the plaintiff has properly valued the suit and paid the proper court fee? (ix) Relief and costs? 6. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, learned Court has decided the above issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by the judgment impugned. Hence this appeal. 7. Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal is his arguments. The grounds pleaded in memo of appeal is that the learned trial Court has not discussed the evidence of the parties brought on record be it oral or documentary. Hence this appeal. 7. Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal is his arguments. The grounds pleaded in memo of appeal is that the learned trial Court has not discussed the evidence of the parties brought on record be it oral or documentary. The approach of the learned Court below is not just and proper and needs interference by this Hon’ble Court. Plaintiff and his witnesses have proved their possession over the suit property and in particular on enquiry by an independent police officer of senior rank, it has been established that the plaintiff is in possession of the property since last more that two decades from the date of suit and not giving any weightage to such statement and evidence by court below or non-consideration thereof makes the judgment impugned unsustainable in the eyes of law. Applying the principles of law of adverse possession against a co-owner when ouster by the plaintiff has been pleaded and proved, required, the court below has erred in not granting decree claimed by the plaintiff. Court below has not properly evaluated the evidence and documents available on record with settled principles of appreciation of evidence. Therefore the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside. 8. Combating the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant, Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, 7 to 9 and 11 vehemently argued that the learned court below has appreciated the evidence brought on record to its proper perspective and no illegality or irregularity committed by the learned court below in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. He further submits that plaintiff failed to prove his continuous possession on the suit land by cogent and prudent evidence hence failed to established the plea of adverse possession. The plaintiff failed to plead and prove the hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of real owner. He further argued that the suit land was purchased by the defendant no. 1 by registered sale deed and his name is also recorded in the revenue records. Though the plaintiff failed to prove his adverse possession, even otherwise mere possession for a long length does not result in adverse possession until it is pleaded and proved as when the possession became adverse to the real owner. 1 by registered sale deed and his name is also recorded in the revenue records. Though the plaintiff failed to prove his adverse possession, even otherwise mere possession for a long length does not result in adverse possession until it is pleaded and proved as when the possession became adverse to the real owner. Intention to possess is altogether different from intention to dispossess which has not been proved by the plaintiff. Therefore, he submitted that the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. To buttress his submissions, he placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Others vs. Revamma and Others, AIR 2997 SC 1753 : (2007) 6 SCC 59 . 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10. The plaintiff pleaded in his plaint that after mutual partition dated 05.10.1983, the suit property fell in share of Badri Prasad S/o Revaram, Sulochana W/o Bharatlal, Badrai Prasad S/o Pyarelal (Father of defendant no. 3 to 4/respondent no. 2 to 4 and husband of defendant no. 5/respondent no. 5), Ramkumar S/o Pyarelal (deceased original defendant no. 6). Heeralal S/o Kapilnath, Bhuleshwar S/o Kapilnath and Dev Prasad S/o Kapilnath. On the basis of the mutual partition, the revenue records were also mutated in the respective names on 06.10.1983. It was further pleaded that none of the above persons ever came to cultivate the suit property and the plaintiff being in possession of the suit property was cultivating the same for more than 22 years uninterrupted. He has developed the suit property and he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. He further pleaded that some portion of suit property was purchased by defendant no. 1 by a forged registered sale deed. 11. In order to prove his pleadings he has examined 6 witnesses. Plaintiff/appellant examined himself as PW-1. In his affidavit under order 18 rule 4 of CPC deposed in the line of his pleadings. In his cross examination he deposed that his dated of birth is 25 may 1969 and in the year 2005 his age was about 36 years. He also admits in these 36 years he spent about 20-25 yeas in his education. He also admits that in the year 1983 his age would be about 15 years. In his cross examination he deposed that his dated of birth is 25 may 1969 and in the year 2005 his age was about 36 years. He also admits in these 36 years he spent about 20-25 yeas in his education. He also admits that in the year 1983 his age would be about 15 years. He states that he became adult in the year 87- 88 and was studying in primary school. In paragraph 36 he admits on the date when the property was sold by defendant no. 2 to 6 to defendant no. 1 their name was recorded as Bhumiswami. He further admits that in the his name is not recorded in the revenue record. He further states that he never tried to record his name as possession holder of the suit property. He never gave any application to Tahsildar, Patwari to record his possession. In paragraph 37 he admits that as per Khasra of year 02-03 (Ex-D1), Ram Bai, Kamlesh, Dilip, Basant, Khorbahrin Bai were shown to have sown wheat, gram, paddy. He further admits that Praful Maheshwari, Mahavir Jain, Shyam Sunder, Sachin Agrawal etc were shown to have sown crop of paddy, lentil, flax seed etc. in the year 03-04 to 05-06 as per ExD-1. In paragraph 38 he admits that as per report Ex-P22 Mahavari Manakchand and 4 others persons were found in possession of the suit property. He admits that he has not preferred any appeal against the certification (mutation) of the suit property. He admits that till class 12th he has studied in Durg. Thereafter, 4 years he studied in Wardha Medical College and after that took training in Durg Hospital. He prepared for P.G. for two years. Thereafter from 1995 to 1997 did Master of Surgery in Medical College, Raipur. In 98-99 he worked in Sector 9 Hospital and thereafter worked in Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital. Since 2004 he is working in Sector 9 Hospital. He further admits that he has not done any proceedings to delete the name of defendants from the revenue records. 12. From deep scrutiny of the evidence of plaintiff/appellant it is apparent on record that the suit property was fell in the share of the defendants after mutual partition in the years 1993. Their names were recorded in the revenue record. The revenue records also indicates their names as possession holder. 12. From deep scrutiny of the evidence of plaintiff/appellant it is apparent on record that the suit property was fell in the share of the defendants after mutual partition in the years 1993. Their names were recorded in the revenue record. The revenue records also indicates their names as possession holder. The plaintiff was aged about 15 years at the time of mutual partition in the year 1983. He spent many years for his study. He never tried to delete the name of defendants from revenue records. 13. Plaintiff examined Gouram (PW-2), Tejlal Thakur (PW-3), Leela Dewangan (PW-4), Hirmotin Thakur (PW-5) and R.K. Rai (PW-6) to prove his possession on the suit property. In their affidavit under order 18 rule 4 CPC, PW-2 to PW-5 deposed in the line of plaintiff (PW-1). Gouram (PW- 2) in his cross examination admits that he is not aware what is written in his affidavit. The affidavit was brought by plaintiff and he signed on it on his saying. He admits that no police person came for enquiry. He has not seen any one cultivating except Ramchandra. Tejlal Thakur (PW-3) in his cross examination he admits that police personnel have not recorded his statement. Police did not come for spot inspection. He states that Ramchandra Deshmukh was cultivating and thereafter Tarrun Nayak (plaintiff) is cultivating. Ramchandra died in the year 96-97. He states after the death of Ramchandra, his daughter Sudha Deshmukh cultivated for 4-5 years. Leela Dewangan (PW-4) (Ex-Corporater) has exhibited a certificate (Ex-P20) dated 07.02.2006 certifying that defendant no. 2 to 6 and some others never lived in village Bghera and never seen them cultivating on any land of village Baghera. In cross examination she states that she gave the certificate of Ex-P20 of saying of plaintiff. Ex-P20 was given to Advocate at Durg by preparing as told. She does not know the names of persons mentioned in serial no. 1 to 14 in the certificate. She does not know the persons mentioned in the certificate personally. It is true to say that she would not recognize them if they are brought before her. She further deposed that she cannot tell today which crop was sown in the year 1992 and how much income was generated on the suit property. 1 to 14 in the certificate. She does not know the persons mentioned in the certificate personally. It is true to say that she would not recognize them if they are brought before her. She further deposed that she cannot tell today which crop was sown in the year 1992 and how much income was generated on the suit property. She furthers states that it is true that she cannot tell which crop was sown from the year 1993 to 2000 on the suit property and how much income was generated. She further states Ramchandra was cultivating during his life time. It is true to say that after the death of Ramchandra his daughter Sudha Deshmukh was in possession. It is true to say that Sudha Deshmukh is cultivating as now on all lands. Hirmotin Thakur (PW-5) (Corporater) gave the almost similar statement as Leela Dewangan (PW- 4). She exhibited certificate Ex-P19. She admits that before issuing the certificate she did not asked the village Patwari with regard to ownership and possession of the land. She further deposed that it is true to say that she has not seen the record of the land. She states that the name mentioned in serial no. 1 to 14 in the certificate is written on the saying of plaintiff. She admits that she does not know whether persons mentioned in the certificate are having any land in village Baghera. 14. From deep scrutiny of the statements of these witnesses it is emerging on record that during Ramchandra was cultivating during his lifetime and after his death his daughter cultivated. Ramchandra died in the year 96- 97. The certificate of Ex-P19 and Ex-P20 was issued on the saying of plaintiff. It is not established that the plaintiff was in uninterrupted, peaceful possession since 1983. 15. Much emphasis is given on the statement of retired Additional S.P., R.K. Rai (PW-6) who conducted the enquiry and gave his report (Ex- P21A). In his examination in chief he states that during his inspection he found that the suit property is surrounded by cement poles and wires. Patwari and other witnesses have told him that these poles and wires were installed by Dr. Tarun Nayik (plaintiff). During enquiry he has recorded statement of village corporater, kotwar, patwari and other villagers of near by land. As per the statement of witnesses, cement poles and wire were installed by Dr. Patwari and other witnesses have told him that these poles and wires were installed by Dr. Tarun Nayik (plaintiff). During enquiry he has recorded statement of village corporater, kotwar, patwari and other villagers of near by land. As per the statement of witnesses, cement poles and wire were installed by Dr. Tarun Naik (plaintiff) for may years and witnesses have not seen any one cultivating on the land except Dr. Tarun Naik (plaintiff). He stated that after comprehensive enquiry and on the basis of statement of witnesses, he found the possession of Dr. Tarun Naik (plaintiff) on the suit property. Patwari of that area Bhushanlal Gajpal in his statement stated the possession of Dr. Tarun Naik (plaintiff) and cultivation by him on the suit property. In his cross examination he states that plaintiff has informed him that his maternal grand father, sisters of maternal grand father and their descendants are the stakeholder in the suit property. He has not made any enquiry from the other stakeholder of the suit property and no notice was given as he did not find it necessary. He further admits that he went to spot to ascertain whether the report dated 7.05.2006 given by the Pulgaon Police is correct of not. He further states that in the complaint of plaintiff (Ex-P21), name of purchaser of the suit property Dr. Maheshwari, Prakash Yadav, Arjun Singh, Rajesh Deshmukh is written. He did not find it necessary to give prior notice of attendance to those persons named in the Ex-P21 before enquiry. 16. Defendant No1 examined himself as DW-1. In his affidavit filed under order 18 rule 4 of CPC he has stated that he has purchased a part of suit property area 2.699 hectare land by a registered sale deed dated 03.02.2005 from defendant no1 to original defendant no. 6 and obtained the possession. After the purchase his name was recorded as Bhumiswami and possession holder by the Naib Tahsildar, Durg and Rin Pustika was given to him. Prior to purchase defendant Kamlesh and others were in possession of that land and they were cultivating paddy, gram, wheat etc. as told by them. He further deposed that he has covered his property by wires for security. Thereafter he has sold his land to Mahavir Jain, Rajesh Jain, Rikhabhchand Jain and handed over the possession. Prior to purchase defendant Kamlesh and others were in possession of that land and they were cultivating paddy, gram, wheat etc. as told by them. He further deposed that he has covered his property by wires for security. Thereafter he has sold his land to Mahavir Jain, Rajesh Jain, Rikhabhchand Jain and handed over the possession. Since then Mahavir Jain and others have the possession of the said land and they are cultivating and sowing the crop. They have hired Hanuman Deshmukh for helping in the farming. Plaintiff never cultivated the said land nor he has the possession. Rajesh Kumar Jain (DW-2), Hanuman Deshmukh (DW-3), Radheshyam (DW-4) and Kamlesh Deshmukh (DW-5) have deposed more or less in the line of deposition of Praful Maheshwari (DW-1) and supported his case. All the defendant witnesses have denied the possession of plaintiff and stated about the possession respective defendants. 17. The law with regard to perfection of title on the basis of adverse possession is no longer res integra. A Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Siddiq (Dead) through LRs. (Ram Janmabhumi Temple) vs. Mahant Suresh Das and Others, (2020) 1 SCC 1 in paragraph 1142-1143 held as under: “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 be comes 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. It be comes 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 paragraph 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 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.” 18. This judgment was relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttam Chand (Dead) through LRs. vs. Nathu Ram (Dead) through LRs. (2020) 11 SCC 263 in Para 15. In case of M. Karim vs. Mst Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SC 1254 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found, here is no evidence here when possession became adverse, if it at all did, and a mere suggestion in the relief clause that there was an uninterrupted possession for “several 12 years” or that the plaintiff had acquired “an absolute title” was not enough to raise such a plea. Long possession is not necessarily adverse possession and the prayer clause is not a substitute for a plea.” 19. In case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Others vs. Manjit Kaur and Others, (2019) 8 SCC 729 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “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 synonym 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 the large 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 possession.” 20. Following observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chatti Konati Rao and Others vs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316 with regard to plea of adverse possession: “15. Animus possidendi as is well known a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. Mere possession does not ripen into possessory title until possessor holds property adverse to the title of the true owner 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 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. 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. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law.” 21. In light of the above authoritative judgments, the plaintiff in order to acquire title on adverse possession was required to plead and prove (i) on what date he came into possession, (ii) what was the nature of his possession, (iii) whether the factum of possession was known to the defendants/respondents, (iv) how long his possession was continued, (v) his possession was open and undisturbed, (vi) date on which his possession became adverse. 22. Plaintiff claimed to come in possession of the suit property in the year 1983 after the mutual partition has taken place. However, as discussed earlier he was a minor aged about 15 years at that time. From his evidence it is manifest on record that he stayed away for the purpose of his studies and thereafter for his employment. Though he state that he used to visit to the suit property but it is not sufficient to hold that he was in undisturbed continuous possession for all these years. The other plaintiff witnesses tried to established the factum of possession of plaintiff. However, in the cross examination their credibility is demolished. Rather plaintiff witnesses have stated during life time Ramchandra was cultivating the suit property and after his death his daughter Sudha cultivated it. Much weightage was given to the statement of R.K. Rai (PW-6) who gave the report with regard to possession of plaintiff. But the same was prepared without notice to defendants and based upon hearsay evidence. No documentary evidence such as revenue records was brought on record by the plaintiff to show his possession. Rather defendants have exhibited revenue records showing their possession. The witnesses of the defendants have categorically stated that defendants are cultivating crop like paddy, gram wheat etc. on the suit property. Even otherwise the plaintiff in specific term has not pleaded in his plant as to on what date his possession became to the real owner. Rather defendants have exhibited revenue records showing their possession. The witnesses of the defendants have categorically stated that defendants are cultivating crop like paddy, gram wheat etc. on the suit property. Even otherwise the plaintiff in specific term has not pleaded in his plant as to on what date his possession became to the real owner. He has simply pleaded that he has perfected his title on adverse possession. It has also not been pleaded by the plaintiff factum of possession was known to the defendants. The plaintiff miserably failed to plead and prove animus possidendi by cogent and prudent evidence. In view of above the plaintiff failed to plead and prove the essential ingredients to claim title on the basis of adverse possession. 23. Ex Consequenti, the appeal fails and hereby dismissed. 24. No order as to cost. 25. Decree be drawn accordingly.