Brijesh Kumar JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. On 4.3.1983, the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and issuance of permanent preventive injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property described as khasra No.41/1 area 1.09 acres (0.441 hectares) situated in Village Patharia, District Damoh. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had illegally dispossessed the plaintiff from his possession over 110X80 ft. area of land out of the suit property on 20.8.1981. The defendant in his written statement denied all material averments and in addition submitted that the defendant has been in possession of the suit property since 1940-41, i.e. since the times of his grand father. The suit filed by the plaintiff was alleged to have been barred by limitation in view of the same having been filed more than 12 years after the date of dispossession of the plaintiff. A plea of the defendant having acquired title by adverse possession was also raised in the written statement.
3. The trial Court, on an evaluation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, found that ownership in the suit property vested in the plaintiff and the defendant had forcibly occupied the disputed area of 110X80 ft. sometime in the year 1980-81. The defendant's plea of adverse possession was negatived and the suit filed by the plaintiff was held to have been filed within the period of limitation. On these findings the suit was decreed in its entirety.
4. The defendant preferred an appeal. The learned additional district Judge held that in so far as ownership over the suit land is concerned, the same vested in the plaintiff. However, he found that the possession of the land was given to the plaintiff by the State Government on 6.11.68 but the plaintiff has not shown to have taken any steps for dispossessing the defendant and the plea raised by the plaintiff of the defendant having forcibly occupied the land in dispute on 20.8.1981 did not appear to be tenable. On these findings the appeal was allowed and in reversal of the judgment and decree of the trial Court the suit was directed to be dismissed.
5. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal which has been dismissed in limine by the High Court passing a brief order that the matter stood concluded by findings of fact and no substantial question of law arose for determination. The aggrieved plaintiff has filed this appeal by special leave.
6. On 4.5.1999 this Court directed a notice to be issued to the defendant-respondent on the limited question as to why the matter should not be remanded to the High Court for deciding the appeal after framing the question of law.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the trial Court and the first appellate Court. We have also perused the application dated 12.1.2001 filed in this Court on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant setting out the substantial questions of law which in his