JUDGMENT D P. Sood, J.—The sole substantial question of law in this Regular Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is "whether the appellant-defendant had become the owner of the suit property by adverse possession" ? In order to understand the real controversy in between the parties, it would be pertinent to detail the relevant facts. The bone of contention in between the parties to the instant lis is the land comprised in plot No, 13, Block 1-A, measuring 1 bigha situate at Saproon Mandi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) Shri Kirpa Narain was the original owner of the suit land. He had three seas, namely, Prem Kumar, Krishan Kumar and Lalit Kumar. On his death, his heirs inherited the suit land. Later said heirs of Sh. Kirpa Narain sold the suit land vide registered sale deed on 30-12-1980. Thus plaintiff claiming to be the owner in possession of the suit land filed the instant suit for declaration that earlier orders passed by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade Solan, dated 26-6-1979, that of the Collector dated 15-2-1982 and ultimately of the Divisional Commissioner, dated 17-12-1983 holding Smt. Lachmi Devi to be in possession of the suit land as "Kabja Najayaj" are wrong, illegal and of no consequence. In the alternative, the plaintiff sought the relief that in case the defendant Smt. Lachmi Devi is found to be in possession of a portion of the suit land, a decree for possession be passed against her. 2. The defendant resisted and contested the suit by raising preliminary objection, inter alia relating to the locus standi, limitation, jurisdiction and valuation for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. On merits the allegations of the plaintiffs title and possession was disputed. It was averred that "possession of the suit land is with the replying defendant for the last over 30/35 years and she is enjoying the possession property as owner". Regarding orders passed by the revenue authorities it was contended that they are legal and valid. 3. The trial Court framed various issues, one of which is material for determining the instant lis i. e. "whether defendant has become owner by adverse possession" ? 4. Regarding orders passed by the revenue authorities it was contended that they are legal and valid. 3. The trial Court framed various issues, one of which is material for determining the instant lis i. e. "whether defendant has become owner by adverse possession" ? 4. The learned Court below dismissed the suit holding that defendant has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession and that neither the plaintiff has a locus standi to sue nor the suit is within limitation vide its judgment dated 26-8-1986 which was reversed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 17-5-1988. 5. Shri K. D. Sood, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has very intelligently and skilfully contended that orders passed by the revenue authorities referred to the appellants possession for the last more than 12 years and the learned first appellate Court ignored the above said facts which should have been taken note of in holding the suit —in question to be beyond limitation. According to him Article 64 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Further it is contended that on the pleadings and evidence adduced by the defendant it is amply clear that she has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. My attention has also been drawn to the orders passed by the revenue officers referred to above besides the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties in the instant case. 6. At the very out-set, it may be stated that both the parties in the instant case claimed their right based on title. There Is no specific averments on behalf of the defendant that she is in adverse possession of the suit land or that she has acquired title thereto by remaining in hostile possession for a statutory period of more than 12 years to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Rather the claim of Sent Lachmi Devi defendant is that she continued to be in possession of the suit land for the last over 30/35 years and she enjoyed this possession as owner. Nowhere she has contended that she came to occupy the suit land as an act of hostility nor it is shown as to when she did some overt act to the knowledge of the true owner. Nowhere she has contended that she came to occupy the suit land as an act of hostility nor it is shown as to when she did some overt act to the knowledge of the true owner. In her own testimony as DW-1, she has disclosed a version contrary to what she has now pleaded. According to her version the suit land was taken by her husband and after his death she is occupying the same as owner. In her cross-examination, she clarifies that suit land previously belonged to Sh. Kirpa Narain from whom it was taken by her husband. In fact she has betrayed her ignorance to the suggestion whether any document was got executed from the previous owner of the suit land when the land was taken by her husband. This statement clearly indicates that she claimed her possession on the basis of a title which was passed on in favour of her husband by the previous owner. No proof has been adduced in this behalf. Rather the above said claim in the pleadings is contrary, to the plea of accusation of title by way of adverse possession. The close perusal of the orders passed by the revenue officers show that the appellant had not taken any precise stand even at that stage. A bare reading of her statement (Ex. P-l) shows that she was quite ignorant whether her husband happened to raise structure of a room on the part of a suit land after obtaining permission of the true owner or any body objected to it. In fact as per her statement made before the Assistant Collector she never saw the true owner while occupying the suit land This statement is dated 20th June, 1979- Even she did not claim her ownership by way of adverse possession as it has been now contended before this Court. Those statements were considered by the Revenue Officers merely to reach at the conclusion whether any relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties or not. Finding the claimant, i. e., Smt. Lachmi Devi to be in possession of the suit land at the relevant time her possession was entered as Kabja Najayaj’. Subsequent order Ex. PY of Collector shows that appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was time barred. In appeal before the Commissioner (copy of his order Ex. PX), the same was dismissed as withdrawn. 7. Subsequent order Ex. PY of Collector shows that appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was time barred. In appeal before the Commissioner (copy of his order Ex. PX), the same was dismissed as withdrawn. 7. It is well settled that any person who claims ownership by way of adverse possession is under a legal obligation to establish his claim "Nee vi Nee clam Nee precario". The possession howsoever long it may be, does not mature into ownership by way of adverse possession. There is no dispute about this legal proposition. As such the above said facts and circumstances of this case viewed from that angle, does not in any way prove the version put forth by the appellant. 8. It is to be noted that the orders of the revenue authorities merely showed the appellant to be a trespasser and it did not confer any right upon her vide the impugned orders Both the parties to the instant lis claimed their right on the basis of title. Also the plaintiff, i e , the respondents possession was recorded consistently in all the Jamabandi prior to its correction by the order of Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, referred to above. In that view of the matter, the respondent-plaintiff had shown his possession within 12 years prior to the institution of the suit While construing the entire facts, the suit in question must be held to be covered by Article 65, and, therefore, not barred by period of limitation either under Article 100 or Article 113 as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In any case the question of limitation has not been raised as a substantial question of law but to avoid further litigation this aspect of the case has also been considered by this Court. 9. From whatsoever angle the case is viewed, the appellant has failed to establish her title by way of adverse possession Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. The impugned judgment and decree are up-held. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above. Appeal dismissed.