JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 1-6-1988, passed by the then District Judge, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Kangra dated 28-6-1985, has been upheld. 2. Facts out of which the present appeal arise, are that the respondent filed a suit for possession of one storeyed roofed house including compound as also vacant land against the appellants on the basis of title. It was averred by the respondent that he purchased the house, compound and vacant land from one Shri Bhagwan Dass (PW-2) for a lawful valuable consideration of Rs. 2500 /- vide sale deed Ex. PW-1 / A in the year 1972. Endorsement on Ex. PW-1 / A shows that the sale deed was executed on 18-9-1972 on which date itself, the same was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kangra. Case of the respondent further was that he was put into possession of the property purchased by him from Sh. Bhagwan Dass above mentioned. After the house etc. aforesaid had been purchased by the respondent, in the month of September, 1972, predecessor-in-interest of appellants, namely, Beli Ram, forcibly took possession of the house as well as the compound and vacant land when proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated by him, but he was directed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, to have recourse by seeking relief from appropriate Court. Case of the respondent further was that Beli Ram deceased, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had no concern with the suit property and because the appellants failed to hand back the possession despite repeated requests, hence the suit. 3. This suit was contested and resisted by the appellants in the trial Court, wherein amongst other pleas, they averred that the respondent has no title to the property in suit and they had also put up plea of adverse possession, number of other pleas were also raised. Parties, with the aforesaid pleadings went to trial on the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the house in dispute? OPP 2. Whether the suit is within time? OPP 3. Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi or cause of action? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the house in dispute? OPP 2. Whether the suit is within time? OPP 3. Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi or cause of action? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD 6. Whether the act and conduct of the plaintiff is a bar to the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the house in dispute was constructed by predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, as alleged? OPD 8. If issue No. 7 is not proved, whether the defendants have become owners of the house in dispute by adverse possession? OPD 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for use and occupation of the house in dispute, if so, how much? OPP 9-A. Whether the house is located over the defendants land and there is wrong entry of the ownership in the settlement record, if so, to what effect? OPD 10. Relief. 4. In support of his case, the respondent examined as many as four witnesses, namely, PW- 1 Shri Labh Chand scribe of the deed Ex. PW-1 / A and he has stated that the sale deed in question was scribed by him on behalf of Bhagwan Dass in favour of Durga Dass (respondent), which after having been written, was read over and explained to Bhagwan Dass, who admitted it to be correct and then put his signatures, marginal witnesses were Chander Shekhar, Advocate and Chaudhary Sudarshan Lal. He further proved the entry of sale deed in his register at Serial No.195, extract of which entry is Ex. PW-1 / B. PW-2 is Durga Dass respondent, who has supported his claim and amongst other things, he has stated that he was put in possession with the execution of the sale deed by Bhagwan Dass and he has proved the transaction of sale made vide Ex. PW-1 / A and the endorsement of the registration authority as well as the signatures of Bhagwan Dass which is at Ex. PW-2 / A. According to this witness, in his absence Shri Beli Ram entered into possession of the suit property by breaking open the lock and he complained to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate when he was directed to approach the appropriate Court. PW-2 / A. According to this witness, in his absence Shri Beli Ram entered into possession of the suit property by breaking open the lock and he complained to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate when he was directed to approach the appropriate Court. It is in these circumstances that he was forced to file the present suit and he prayed for a decree of possession in respect of the house, compound as well as vacant land. PW-3 Bhagwan Dass, predecessor in title title-vendor of Durga Dass from whom the house in question etc. was purchased, by PW-2 for a consideration of Rs. 2,500 / - which fact has been proved by this witness amongst other things, he states that the possession of the house was delivered to Sh. Durga Dass respondent. It is pointed out that the house is situate within the municipal area. In cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that the possession of the house in question was not delivered to Durga Dass and that a fake deed had been got registered by him. PW-4 Bishamber Dass, who is Head clerk from Municipal Committee, has proved the entries from the relevant municipal records Ex. PW-4 / A and Ex. PW-4 / B pertaining to the house tax and water tax of the house in question respectively. Ex. PW 4 / B from the general cash book pertains to water tax of the house in question. In Ex. PW-4 / A Bhagwan Dass (PW-2) is entered as owner and this pertains to the year 1966-67, whereas in Ex. PW4 / B Durga Dass respondent has been shown to be the person from whom the amount of water tax had been received in respect of the house in question. 5. On the other hand, Geetan Devi has appeared as DW-1 and has supported the pleas raised by the appellants in their written statement to the effect that the house in question is in possession as well as ownership of the appellants and according to her this house had been constructed by the forefathers of the appellants. She has also tried to show in general terms that they are in possession of the house since the times of their ancestors and she says that the house in question was purchased by her grand-father but she feigns ignorance about the registration of the deed. She has also tried to show in general terms that they are in possession of the house since the times of their ancestors and she says that the house in question was purchased by her grand-father but she feigns ignorance about the registration of the deed. She further states that the appellants or Beli Ram, their predecessor-in-interest did not occupy the house in question. DW-2 is Madho Ram, who has stated that earlier the owner of the house Beli Ram and thereafter appellants are in possession thereof. DW-3 is Dina Nath, who also states that he knew the appellants as well as Durga Dass and Bhagwan Dass. According to him Beli Ram was earlier owner and thereafter his legal representatives are the owners of the suit property. Earlier Beli Ram was in possession and now his legal representatives are in possession and he has been seeing the possession for the last 26 years. 6. In addition to this, respondent placed reliance on Ex. PW 1 / A, sale deed along with this plan of the house Ex. PW1 / B, extract from the Register of sale deed of the scribe relating to other documents, whereas appellants have placed on record copy of the order Ex. DB passed by Settlement Officer, Kangra, wherein he had allowed the entry to be made in favour of the appellants, Ex. D-2 and Ex. D-3 have also been placed on record by the appellants, along with Ex. D-4 copy of the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kangra passed in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were also placed on the record. 7. It may be pointed out here that during the course of the proceedings before the lower appellate Court, it was conceded on behalf of the appellants that the claim based on title as pleaded by them is not proved on record for want of cogent evidence and therefore, their learned counsel appearing before the lower appellate Court confined the claim of the appellants merely on the ground of adverse possession. The appeal was admitted in this Court on 23-11-1989 on the following question of law : Whether a plea denying the plaintiffs title with a plea of adverse possession are inconsistent pleas? 8. The appeal was admitted in this Court on 23-11-1989 on the following question of law : Whether a plea denying the plaintiffs title with a plea of adverse possession are inconsistent pleas? 8. Shri S. S. Kanwar, Senior Advocate, for the appellants has argued that adverse possession in the present case stands duly established from the evidence of the ppellants and both the Courts below have erred in decreeing the claim of the respondent and as such the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be reversed and consequently, the suit of the respondent dismissed. He referred to statements of defendants witnesses and led stress on Ex. D-2 and Ex. DB. It may not be out of place to mention that the said order of Settlement Officer, Kangra is dated 27-7-1978, whereas suit in the present case was filed on 27-12-1979, within the period of limitation of dispossession as according to the respondent he was dispossessed in the month of September, 1972. The plea of the respondent having been dispossessed in the month of September, 1972 has not been specifically denied as required under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as such the same shall be deemed to have been admitted by the appellants. The suit having been filed within the period of limitation from dispossession, Ex. DB does not improve the case of the appellants in any manner whatsoever and the plea raised in this behalf is negatived. 9. In view of the stand of the appellants before the lower appellate Court the only question that survives in the present appeal is whether the appellants have been in a position to prove their adverse possession in accordance with law. It is pointed out in this behalf that in the event of plea of adverse possession being raised as in the present case, has been raised by the appellants, the pre-requisite is that the title of the respondent is not in dispute because the adverse title would only be against a third person i.e. respondent in the present case. 10. It is pointed out in this behalf that in the event of plea of adverse possession being raised as in the present case, has been raised by the appellants, the pre-requisite is that the title of the respondent is not in dispute because the adverse title would only be against a third person i.e. respondent in the present case. 10. In order to establish the plea of adverse possession, appellants were required to show firstly as to when they and / or their predecessor dispossessed either the respondent or his predecessor-in-interest Shri Bhagwan Dass (PW-2) which would be the starting point for reckoning the period of 12 years; appellants were further required to establish by cogent, unimpeachable as well as trustworthy evidence the factum of their having remained in continuous, open and hostile possession of the suit property that too with the knowledge as well as exclusion of the real owner. From the evidence on record on behalf of the appellants, the same is totally general and vague in nature which does not establish the plea of adverse possession to the hilt. It has nowhere been pointed out in the evidence of any of the witnesses produced by the appellants that when and at what point of time they came into possession of the suit property and from whom they obtained the possession of the property in question and in what manner. A bare perusal of statement of DW-1 would show that she has stated that the property in question was purchased by her grand-father, but she feigns ignorance about the registered deed. In this view of the matter, the plea of adverse possession does not stand proved and accordingly the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in this behalf deserve to be rejected. 11. Moreover, the findings recorded regarding the appellants being not in adverse possession of the suit property are findings of fact concurrently recorded by the courts below after due appreciation of evidence, therefore, on this ground also the appeal of the appellants must fail as there is no question of law much less a substantial question of law which calls for interference in the present appeal. While taking this view, I am supported by number of cases decided by the Honble Apex Court and to quote a few of them which are (1994) 6 SCC 545, Shyam Sunder Dutta v. Baikuntha Nath Banerjee (dead) by LRS; (1995) 6 SCC 213, Kashibai w/o Lachiram v. Parwatibai w / o Lachiram, 1987 Supp SCC 161; Bruce v. Silva Raj, AIR 1992 SC 115; Ramaswamy Kalingaryar v. Mathayan Padayachi, 1993 (4) JT (SC) 642; O. T. M. O. M. Meyyappa Chettiar v. O. T. M. S. M. Kasi Viswanathan Chettiar, 1993 (2) JT (SC) 464; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. State Bank of India, AIR 1961 SC 1097; Raruha Singh v. Achal Singh, besides a judgment of this Court reported in 1993 (2) Sim LC 335, Prakash Chand v. Bhagat Ram. It may be proper to point out here that both the courts below have negatived the plea of adverse possession raised by the appellants, after due appreciation and examination of evidence both oral as well as documentary which findings do not call for any interference in the present appeal. 12. As a result of the aforementioned discussion, the present appeal is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 1000 / -. Appeal dismissed.