This appeal is by the defendants against the judgment of reversal. 2. According to the plaintiff he is the sole owner of the land covered by dag No. 1814 and 2308 of the periodic patta No. 1719 of Nagar Mahal Mouza in Sibsagar town. In the plaint two schedules have been given, namely, Schedules -'A' and 'B'. The defendants have their own land contiguous to the suit land. It is alleged that the defendants 1, 2 and 3 encroached the land of the plaintiff in Dag No. 2306 by raising a thatched house which was replaced by C.I. Sheets sub­sequently and in Dag No. 1814, the defendants constructed three service latrines without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. On 16.1.67, the plaintiff got his land surveyed and detected that the defendants trespassed into his land. Hence, the present suit praying for a decree of declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land and for removal of the structures on the said land. A Joint written statement has been filed on behalf of all the defendants except the defendant No. 7. It has been pleaded that the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 are in undisturbed peaceful possession of the land of Dag No.2306 and a part of dag No. 1314 with their latrines thereon and other defendants are also in possession of dag No. 1814 with their latrines thereon openly and adversely for more than 12 years against the plaintiff and thus their possession has become adverse. It has also been pleaded that the description of the land in the Schedules to the plaint is vague and that the suit is barred by limitation. 3. Learned trial court framed as many as nine issues and by judgment dated 3.9.76 decreed the suit. However, the learned lower appellate court remanded the suit mainly on the ground that the judgment is based on two reports of the Survey Commissioner. According to the learned lower appellate court, the trial court ought to have relied on the subsequent report. Thereafter, the learned trial court dismissed the suit which was reserved by the learned lower appellate court and accordingly, the suit was decreed. 4. Mr. According to the learned lower appellate court, the trial court ought to have relied on the subsequent report. Thereafter, the learned trial court dismissed the suit which was reserved by the learned lower appellate court and accordingly, the suit was decreed. 4. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants has urged that issue No. 2 is most important issue but it was not considered by the courts below and, as such, the judgment is liable to be set aside. According to the learned counsel at least the case should go back to give a decision on this point. Issue No. 2 runs as follows: "2. Whether the plaint suffers from inaccurate and vague particulars and liable to be rejected as such ?" In the plaint, the land has been described as follows: " Schedule - 'A' - The portion of land covered by Dag No. 2306 of patta No. 1719 whereon the thatched house stands with an encroachment of the CI sheet roofed house being holding No. 123. Schedule -' B' - The portion of the land covered by dag No. 1814 of the P. Patta No. 1719 whereon the service latrines stand measuring an area of more or less one lecha." 5. According to Mr. Talukdar this description is sufficient to identify the land because the structures standing on the respective dags have been described. Ac­cording to Mr. Talukdar if the parties know the extent of encroachment, the question of vagueness cannot arise. 6. Mr. Talukdar has placed reliance on the decision in Ram Swarup Gupta vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and others, (1987) 2 SCC 555 . In paragraph 6 of the judgment their Lordships, inter alia, held that the pleadings however should receive a liberal construction; no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities and sometimes, pleadings are expressed in words which may not expressly make out a case in accordance with strict interpretation of law, in such a case it is the duty of the court to ascertain the substance of the pleadings to determine the question and it is not desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead the substance of the pleadings should be considered. 7. According to Mr. Talukdar keeping in view the above ratio, if the Schedules to the plaint along with the report of the Survey Commissioner are considered there is no vagueness. Ext. 7. According to Mr. Talukdar keeping in view the above ratio, if the Schedules to the plaint along with the report of the Survey Commissioner are considered there is no vagueness. Ext. 4 is the map. Reading the report with reference to the map and the two schedules to the plaint I find considerable force in the submission of Mr. Talukdar. 8. Mr. Goswami has urged that due to this vagueness even if the suit is decreed, it will not be possible to identify the land. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel in view of the position stated above and also taking into consideration the joint written statement, more particularly, paragraph 5 thereof. I, therefore, reject the contention of Mr. Goswami. 9. Another point which I find is that from the Memo, of Appeal filed before the learned lower appellate Court, this point of vagueness was not at all taken into consideration and from the judgment of the learned lower appellate court I find that this issue was not pressed (vide paragraph 15 of the judgment). Thus in a Second Appeal such a plea cannot be taken. 10. It is not disputed at the Bar that in the case in hand Article 65 of the Limitation Act will come into play. This is so, as the present suit is not a case of dispossession but a suit for declaration of title and the plea taken is that of adverse possession. According to Article 65, the period of limitation is 12 years and the starting point of the said period is the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. As the plea of adverse possession has been taken by the defendants, the onus is on the defendants to prove it. Mr. Goswami has urged that learned lower appellate court did not at all consider the evidence of D. Ws. 2 and 3. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn my attention to paragraph 14 of the said judgment. I have perused the entire judgment and I am of the opinion that the learned lower appellate court has considered the entire matter regarding adverse possession in accordance with law and this being a finding of fact needs no interference by this Court in the Second Appeal. 11. Mr. I have perused the entire judgment and I am of the opinion that the learned lower appellate court has considered the entire matter regarding adverse possession in accordance with law and this being a finding of fact needs no interference by this Court in the Second Appeal. 11. Mr. Talukdar has drawn my attention to a decision of the Apex Court in Goya Parshad Dikshit vs. Dr. Nirmal Chander and another, AIR 1984 SC 930 . Though this is a case of termination of licence but the law laid down is also applicable in the case in hand. The Apex Court, inter alia, held that for adverse possession there must be overt act on the part of the licensee indicating assertion of hostile title and mere continuance of unauthorised possession even for a period more than 12 years is not enough. 12. The case in hand is a case of boundary dispute between two owners having common boundary. The plaintiff became aware of the encroachment only after survey and there is no evidence whatsoever on the part of the defendants of any overt act. That apart, the Courts below have also given finding that the defendants became aware of the encroachment only after the survey was done. In view of the above position and this being a finding of fact, it needs no interference as stated above. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstan­ces of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own cost.