BHAWENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the CPC.

(2.) Mr. Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that both the courts below are absolutely unjustified in dismissing the civil suit filed by the plaintiff by holding that plaintiff is encroacher upon the suit land by recording a finding which is perverse to the record, ignoring the fact that he is in settled possession of the suit land since 1947-48, as such, he has perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse possession and therefore, the second appeal involves substantial question of law for determination and deserves to be admitted for hearing.

(3.) In a suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration of title stating that he is in settled possession of the suit land since 1947-48, and that possession has culminated into adverse possession and he is entitled for decree of declaration over the suit land on the basis of adverse possession. The defendant/State filed its written statement stating inter alia that old Khasra No. 104 area 0.845 hectare was recorded as grass land in revenue records and it was never recorded as bhumiswami land, and therefore, plaintiff is the encroacher on the government grass land and his application under Section 57(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 was rightly rejected by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, as such, plaintiff's suit for declaration of title deserves to be dismissed as barred by limitation.