JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.: Admit. With the consent of the parties this appeal has been taken up for final hearing at this stage and is being disposed of accordingly. 2. This is a defendant’s appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Chamba dated 4.4.1994 in Civil Appeal No.41 1995/1993, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 102 of 1989 dated 9.9.1993 has been affirmed. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this case arc that a suit for possession and rendition of accounts was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The plea of the plaintiff was that he is the owner in possession of the suit premises comprised in Khata Khatauni No.961/1281, Khasra Nos.5618,5649 and 5621 measuring 124-4 sq. yards, situate in Mophalla Sapri within the to winship of Chamba (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). According to the plaintiff, while he was employed in the Department of Ayurveda, Himachal Pradesh, he was posted out from Chamba. Since the premises were located at a distance of about 60 yards from the bus stand, the plaintiff with a view to have maximum returns out of it, executed a registered power of attorney (Ext.P-2) and authorised the defendant to manage the suit premises as well as for looking after the same. He also executed his last will (Ext.P-1) which was registered. The case of the plaintiff further was that with the funds provided by him a three storey building was constructed where in its ground floor, the defendant was running a guest house in the name of Super Lodge and on the basis of General Power of Attorney dated 27.1.1982, he got a licence under the H.P. Registration of Hotels and Travelling Agents Act,1972 from the Commissioner of Tourism, Himachal Pradesh on 11.2.1982, The defendant had borrowed Rs.15,000/- for running hotel in the suit property from the State Bank of Patiala. The plaintiff has retired from service on 31.1.1987. The plaintiff wanted to run his hotel at his own responsibility. At such stage, the defendant had refused to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. At this stage, plaintiff issued a notice vide Ext.P-3 upon the defendant which was duly replied to by the defendant vide Ext. P- 4. The plaintiff wanted to run his hotel at his own responsibility. At such stage, the defendant had refused to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. At this stage, plaintiff issued a notice vide Ext.P-3 upon the defendant which was duly replied to by the defendant vide Ext. P- 4. Amongst other things, the defendant did not dispute the execution of power of attorney, though he stated that it was only for limited purposes of either defending a case against the plaintiff or for filing a case in respect of the property in question on behalf of the plaintiff. From the tenor of the reply it appears that the defendant claimed adverse possession in respect of the property in question. In any event, neither in the written statement nor in the reply to the notice sent by defendant, the title of the plaintiff was disputed expressly by the defendant. In the written statement, a plea was raised that the defendant one night was counting the currency notes worth Rs.48, 000/- when the plaintiff came there and advised the defendant that instead of depositing this amount in the bank, he should spent it on construction of the premises in question. It was further pleaded that the entire construction has been raised by the defendant after putting in those Rs.48, 000/- in this exercise besides having raised money by sale of gold ornaments. The defendant also claimed that he had raised funds from other sources and it was thereafter that in the year 1984-85, he started running the hotel in question in his own name w.e.f. 11.2.1985. Thus, it is evident that adverse possession was claimed which was put lo issue under issue No. 9 by the trial court. 4. In the replication, all the pleas raised by the defendant were controverted. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit house as alleged?.....OPP. 2 Whether the defendant was manager and agent of the plaintiff of the suit house as alleged?.....OPP, 3. If Issue No.2 is proved, whether she plaintiff is entitled is rendition of accounts? ....OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff in connection with his employment had bees posted out of Chamba?.....OPP 5. Whether the defendant had constructed the suit house and now is owner in possession as alleged? ...OPD. If Issue No.2 is proved, whether she plaintiff is entitled is rendition of accounts? ....OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff in connection with his employment had bees posted out of Chamba?.....OPP 5. Whether the defendant had constructed the suit house and now is owner in possession as alleged? ...OPD. 6. Whether the suit is within lime?......OPP. 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from instituting the suit by his act and conduct?.....OPD. 8. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? ...OPP. 9. Whether the defendant has acquired title to the suit house by adverse possession?.....OPD. : 10. Relief. Issues No. 1 to 4 and 6 were decided in the affirmative whereas issues No.5 and 7 to 9 were decided in the negative and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed under issue No.10. 6. An appeal filed by the defendant before the lower appellate court also met the same fate, hence this appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case minutely. 8. Mr. K. D. Sood, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the statement of the witnesses and documents on record. According to him, it is proved on record that the loan in question was raised by his client in his own name from State Bank of Patiala, Chamba Branch. This contention simply deserves to be rejected. At the relevant point of time when the loan was raised, the defendant was acting as an attorney of the plaintiff. Besides this, at that time, there was no hostility between the parties. The trouble started when the defendant was asked by the plaintiff to give the accounts of the past income and to hand over the possession of the premises in suit. When the defendant failed to do so, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a notice (Ext.P-3) which was duly replied to by the defendant. In this view of the matter, simply raising loan or getting licence to run the hotel by the defendant in his own name, does not establish the adverse possession or extinguish the title of the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, the submission of Mr. Sood made with reference to Ext.DW-12/A deserves to be rejected and it is ordered accordingly. In this view of the matter, the submission of Mr. Sood made with reference to Ext.DW-12/A deserves to be rejected and it is ordered accordingly. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to evidence brought on record by the plaintiff in the shape of permission having been obtained by the plaintiff from Municipal Committee, Chamba for the construction of the building,, his having committed some offence under the Municipal laws for which he was panalised. Even otherwise, there is sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence in the shape of jamabandi for the year 1985-86 (Ext.P-7), Khasra girdawaris for different periods from 3.11.1971 to 3.11.1986 (Exts.P-PE, PF and PG). From the documentary evidence, it is clear that in the column of ownership, plaintiff had been shown to be the owners and in the column of cultivation, the plaintiff has been shown to be in possession.. 9. In the context of adverse possession, it may be appropriate to mention that though the defendant had pleaded that he is in possession of the property in question since 1973-74, how and in what manner he came into possession and since when he declared his hostile animus to the right, title and interest of the plaintiff, has not been spelt out. Howsoever, long possession may be there, unless the defendant had shown the starting point of limitation since when he declared his hostile animus qua his possession over the suit property, no benefit can be derived by the defendant from his long possession. Both the courts below have held that the possession of the defendant over the premises in suit is permissive and thus, the plea of adverse possession has rightly been negatived. When confronted with this situation, Mr. Sood was not in a position to stretch his submission further. 10. Besides this, findings regarding adverse possession are findings of fact, which do not call for interference in a second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. and in taking this view, I am supported by a decision reported in 1993 (2), Shimla Law Cases, 335, Prakash Chandv. Bhagat Ram & Ors., 11. Mr. K.D. Sood further submitted that his application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. has been wrongly rejected by the lower appellate court which has resulted in causing grave hardship to his client. In order to appreciate this submission of Mr. Bhagat Ram & Ors., 11. Mr. K.D. Sood further submitted that his application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. has been wrongly rejected by the lower appellate court which has resulted in causing grave hardship to his client. In order to appreciate this submission of Mr. Sood, it may be appropriate to point out that DW-12 was the Bank Manager, who had appeared in court on 19.12.1992 and he proved on record the certificate (Ext.DW-12/A). Mr. Sood also submitted with reference to the loan in question that the loan was raised by the defendant from the bank. Firstly, no case has been made out as envisaged under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and secondly from Ext.DW-12/A, it stood clearly established that the loan in question was raised by the defendant who was shown as proprietor of the hotel vide agreement dated 3.5.1984 and in respect of guarantee, it was also pointed out in the said certificate that the loan was guaranteed by the plaintiff. As such rejection of the application under order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. by the Courts below is correct both on account of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. being not attracted at all and no case having been made out by the defendant and secondly the very purpose of proving these documents stood established from Ext.DW-12/A proved by the defendant in the statement of Bank Manager examined on his behalf. On this count also, the submission of Mr. K.D. Sood is hereby rejected. 12. Another ground raised is regarding estoppel on the part of the plaintiff from filing the suit for rendition of accounts. It appears that the defendant was out to grab the property of the plaintiff by all means just or unjust little realising that the plaintiff had already appointed him as his attorney and had bequethed the property in question in terms of a registered will (Ext.P-1). Instread of having patience and to allow the plaintiff to enjoy the property during his life time and thereafter to become the owner of the same, he tried to show him the way. Thereafter, vide Ext.P-5 the registered will Ext.P-1 as revoked and Ext P-2, power of attorney was also revoked by the plaintiff vide deed of revocation (Ext.P-6). Instread of having patience and to allow the plaintiff to enjoy the property during his life time and thereafter to become the owner of the same, he tried to show him the way. Thereafter, vide Ext.P-5 the registered will Ext.P-1 as revoked and Ext P-2, power of attorney was also revoked by the plaintiff vide deed of revocation (Ext.P-6). The plaintiff is admittedly the owner of the property in question which position is even admitted by the defendant the moment he put up the plea of adverse possession as question of adverse possession would only arise when the defendant admits the title of the plaintiff qua the suit premises. 13. No other point has been urged on behalf of the appellant- defendant in support of the appeal 14. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Defendant shall pay the costs to the plaintiff which arc quantified at Rs.2, 000/-.