CHANDRAKALI Vs. BUNDELA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the CPC by defendant No.3 / appellant herein was admitted for hearing by formulating the following substantial questions of law: -

(2.) The suit land bearing Khasra No.152/1, area 0.16 acre was originally held by Tekram and his three sisters which was sold by them vide registered sale deed dated 2-5-2003 in favour of plaintiff Bundela Bai and thereafter, Bundela Bai filed an application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 alleging that in 0.02 acre land, defendant No.3 Chandrakali has constructed a house and is in possession, she be dispossessed and Bundela Bai be given possession, that application was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, the plaintiff brought suit that in 0.02 acre land, defendant No.3 has encroached by constructing a house and she is entitled for possession which the trial Court granted and the first appellate Court affirmed the judgment & decree of the trial Court against which this second appeal has been preferred in which substantial questions of law have been formulated which have been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

(3.) Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein / defendant No.3, would submit that admittedly, defendant No.3 is in possession after constructing a house over the suit land bearing Khasra No.152/1, area 0.02 acre, and as such, she has perfected her title. He would alternatively plead that even if it is held that adverse possession has not been duly pleaded and established, by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the plaintiff's right and title over the suit land has extinguished and defendant No.3 being in possession, the suit deserves to be dismissed to that extent.