Long possession alone does not establish adverse possession without pleading and proving when possession became hostile.

The plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit land under a registered sale deed dated 12 March 2008 and sued to recover possession from the defendants.

The defendants asserted that they and their predecessors had possessed the land for more than 50 years and claimed title by adverse possession.

The Trial Court found that the plaintiff had acquired ownership and that the defendants had not proved adverse possession, but dismissed the suit.

The First Appellate Court reversed that decree and allowed the plaintiff’s appeal.

Defendant No. 1 challenged that decision under Section 100 CPC; the defendants had filed neither a counterclaim at trial nor a cross-appeal or cross-objection against the Trial Court’s adverse-possession finding.

Whether the appeal raised a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC with the First Appellate Court’s decree for possession

Whether the defendants’ asserted long possession established adverse possession despite the absence of proof identifying when their possession became hostile to the true owner

Section 100 CPC confines a second appeal to cases involving a substantial question of law; the High Court ordinarily cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb factual findings unless they are vitiated by perversity, a legal error, inadmissible evidence, or absence of evidence.

The Court relied on Russi Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 555, and Jaichand (Dead) through LRs v. Sahnulal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864, on those limits.

A plea of adverse possession must be specifically pleaded and proved, including the date and circumstances from which possession became hostile; long possession alone is insufficient.

The Court applied the principles quoted from Bhag Singh (Dead) by LRs v. Basant Kaur (Dead) by LRs, AIR 2026 SC 4303.

The plaintiff’s title under the registered sale deed and the defendants’ possession were established, but the defendants showed no right, title, or interest in the land.

The Trial Court had rejected the adverse-possession plea, and the defendants did not challenge that finding before the First Appellate Court.

Their assertion of possession for more than 12 years did not establish when or how that possession became hostile, as required for adverse possession.

The Court found no perversity or other legal basis to disturb the First Appellate Court’s decision and held that the appeal disclosed no substantial question of law.

There was no order as to costs.

The connected civil application for stay was disposed of as not surviving.