Concurrent Findings Affirming Failure to Establish Hostile Animus Preclude Acquisition of Title via Adverse Possession

The Appellant (plaintiff) filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of title based on adverse possession, permanent injunction, and recovery of possession for 0.26 acres of land in Village Pondi.

He claimed his father purchased adjacent land in 1975 and that they remained in continuous, hostile, and open possession of the suit property for nearly 40 years.

The Respondents (defendants) contested this, asserting ownership via revenue records and filing a counterclaim alleging the plaintiff encroached on the land only in 2014.

Both the Trial Court (II Civil Judge Class-I, Kawardha) and the First Appellate Court (District Judge, Kabirdham) dismissed both the suit and the counterclaim.

The Appellant challenged these concurrent findings before the High Court.

1. Whether the Appellant perfected title over the suit property by way of adverse possession through long, continuous, and hostile possession.

2. Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were perverse or based on a misreading of evidence, warranting interference under Section 100 of the CPC.

The court primarily applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which limits the High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals to "substantial questions of law".

The plea of adverse possession requires clear and cogent evidence of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario (possession without force, secrecy, or permission) and a demonstrated animus possidendi (intent to exclude the true owner).

The court further cited State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal (2019) regarding the restricted scope of interfering with concurrent findings.

Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhavna Seth Ors. (2026) to emphasize that findings of fact, even if erroneous, cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless they are "vitiated for want of perversity".

The High Court observed that the lower courts concurrently found the Appellant failed to prove the essential ingredients of adverse possession.

The court noted that mere long-term cultivation or possession does not automatically translate to adverse possession without proof of hostile animus toward the true owner.

Upon reviewing the revenue records and earlier proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, the Court found that the dispute only surfaced in recent years (2014), which negated the claim of continuous and settled hostile possession for the statutory period.

The Court reasoned that since the findings were based on a proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, they constituted findings of fact and not a substantial question of law.

The Court affirmed the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, ruling that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any perversity or misreading of evidence that would justify interference under Section 100 of the CPC.