JUDGMENT P.K.Palli, J.— This second appeal has been filed by the defendant, i. e., the State of Pradesh. Parties hereinafter, in the judgment shall be referred to as Plaintiff and defendant. 2. The suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, was filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration that he has become owner by way of adverse possession in respect of the suit land and a decree for permanent injunction was also claimed restraining the defendant from ejecting or interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 3 The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, has granted to the plaintiff the decree prayed for by him and this decree passed by the learned trial Court stands affirmed by the learned first appellate Court in appeal filed by the defendant. 4 On the plaintiffs own showing the suit land belonged to and was recorded in the ownership of Thakurdwara Sahib till) the year 1972-73. Though, the land was said to be recorded Banjar Kadim and further m possession of its owner, yet actually on the spot different persons were cultivating it on behalf of Thakurdwara Sahib and paying rent to the Mohatmin. 5. It is also said in the plaint that in the year 1972-73 the State of Himachal Pradesh took over the management of Thakurdwara Sahib and thereafter the land has continued to be recorded in the ownership of the defendant, but the possession has remained with Makbuja Bashindgan Deh as per entries comprising Jamabiadi of the year 1982-83. Plaintiff claimed the entire suit land to be under Ws cultivation. It was in the year 1968 that the Tehsildar, Jubbal, who at that point of time was the President of the Thakurdwara Sahib com mil tee ordered that the proceedings for ejectment of the plaintiff be initiated under section 163 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act. An ex partc order of ejectment was passed against him in respect of the suit land. The plaintiff has also alleged that challenge was made to the order passed by the Tehsildar before the Collector and the order was set aside and the case remanded back for fresh trial. Nothing further has been said as to what happened after the case was remanded back. 6. The plaintiff has also alleged that challenge was made to the order passed by the Tehsildar before the Collector and the order was set aside and the case remanded back for fresh trial. Nothing further has been said as to what happened after the case was remanded back. 6. The defendant while resisting the suit has raised plea that the suit was not maintainable as the same was time barred. Jurisdiction of the Court was also questioned On merits, it was stated that the land is Banjar Kadim and is in possession of the defendant, who is recorded to be its owner It was denied that the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the land or paying revenue to the Mohatmin. The plea raised by the plaintiff that the land came to him by way of family partition was denied. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was found to be in unauthorised possession over a part of the suit land having encroached upon it in the year 1968-69. The ejectment proceedings were initiated and the Assistant Collector rightly passed the ejectment order against the plaintiff on October 3, 1*79 and a fine was also imposed on the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 500. The appeal filed by the plaintiff before the Collector was dismissed as withdrawn and thereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rohru has ordered the Assi tam Collector, Jubbal vide order dated August 9, 1985f to eject the plaintiff out of the suit land and thereafter the present suit has been filed. 7. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, held under issue No. 1 that the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. 8. The learned first appellate Court almost on the same reasonings has upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and the appeal stands dismissed. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the defendant has seriously argued that the ownership in respect of the property in question is recorded to be that of Thakurdwara Sahib till 1972-73. The defendant is said to have taken over the management somewhere in the year 1973. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the defendant has seriously argued that the ownership in respect of the property in question is recorded to be that of Thakurdwara Sahib till 1972-73. The defendant is said to have taken over the management somewhere in the year 1973. Proceedings for ejectment of the plaintiff are said to have been initiated in the year 1968 69 and these proceedings reached finality in the year 1985 and ejectment order was upheld. It is thereafter that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff on June 22, 1985. The learned Counsel is at pains to submit that judging the case from any angle the plaintiff could not be granted a declaration that he has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession The argument is that the plaintiff has neither made proper pleadings in this respect nor there is any evidence on the basis of which such a decree could be granted. 10. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits, in reply, that both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have returned a categoric finding that the plaintiff has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession According to the learned Counsel, there is no case of misreading of evidence nor any point of law arises for determination and the impugned judgments be not interfered within second appeal. 11. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at length and after going through the impugned judgments and the record, I find that from the side of the plaintiff the evidence consists of oral statements of witnesses examined on his behalf. They are eight in number. 11. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at length and after going through the impugned judgments and the record, I find that from the side of the plaintiff the evidence consists of oral statements of witnesses examined on his behalf. They are eight in number. 12 A close perusal of the statement made by the plaintiff makes out that he has himself conceded that the property was owned and possessed by Thakurdwara Sahib and the land is recorded as Banjar It is too well known that in case the nature of the laud is Banjar, the possession would always be deemed to be that of the person who is recorded as owner in the proprietorship column .The plaintiff has himself accepted this position that in the record of rights the land is recorded as Banjar Kadim, which would mean that the same is lying Barren for quite a considerable period How the plaintiff has come to occupy and which portion of the land and in which capacity, comes out from the mouth of the plaintiff himself, when he states that he used to pay Galla, i e. revenue to the Mohatmin and their ancestors also were cultivating this laud for Thakurdwara on payment of rent. Once the Thakurdwara Sahib is recorded to be the owner and in possession of the land, the plaintiff had to make out a proof of adverse possession, 13. I have also perused the plaint filed in the present suit, Nowhere in the body of the plaint the ingredients of adverse possession are mentioned. In para 12 of the plaint it is mentioned that the fore-fathers of the plaintiff have been cultivating the suit land on payment of rent since 1U0 years and the plaintiff is in continuous possession and without any interruption is cultivating the same for over more than 18 years and is not liable to be ejected in a summary manner. A further line is added that in the alternative, possession of plaintiff has rippened into ownership being adverse since October 1967 to the knowledge of the true owner. 14. The suit was filed in the year 1985. A further line is added that in the alternative, possession of plaintiff has rippened into ownership being adverse since October 1967 to the knowledge of the true owner. 14. The suit was filed in the year 1985. Accepting the averments made in the plaint to be true on its face value, it does not lead to even remote an inference that the plaintiffs possession rippened into ownership during this period as the statutory period is not completed to claim the desired relief. 15. Nowhere in the body of the plaint it is mentioned as to at what point of time the plea of hostility was projected. Plaintiff in order to claim title on the basis of adverse possession has to plead in so many words as to at what point of time and by what act or omission or commission it was made known to the true owner that the plaintiff was claiming hostile title to the knowledge of the true owner. Further, the said possession has to be consistent uninterruptedly, continuously and notoriously to the knowledge of the actual and real owner. 16. The plaintiff, thus, in the given situation has to plead that at the time when Thakurdwara Sahib was recorded to be the owner, the plaintiff had by some overt act made it known his intention in possessing the land adversely. The defendant came to be recorded in the ownership column after 1973. It is further not explained in the case as to how and in what manner and by which order or direction or operation of law, the defendant took over the management and control of this institution. If the proceedings in respect of the unauthorised possession of the plaintiff were initiated way back m the year 1968-69. that would mean that the defendant has come up to assert its title much prior to the year 1973 No specific findings can be recorded in the absence of proper pleadings and evidence. 17. The only documentary evidence placed on record consists of Ext. DA, which is mutation, on the strength of which the ownership of Thakurdwara came to be recorded in the defendant fn the proprietorship column Thakurdwara Sahib is entered and in the possessory column Makbuja Malik Makoor are recorded. 17. The only documentary evidence placed on record consists of Ext. DA, which is mutation, on the strength of which the ownership of Thakurdwara came to be recorded in the defendant fn the proprietorship column Thakurdwara Sahib is entered and in the possessory column Makbuja Malik Makoor are recorded. The entry was changed in favour of the defendant and the possessory entry remained intact iu the same position In column No. 13 it is recorded that the change of ownership has been occasioned vide order passed by the Collector, Rohru, dated April 7, 1975. Nothing has been explained as to under what circumstances or situation the order was passed. Be that as it may. 18. !n the Jamabandi of the year 1977-78, Ext. DB, the defendant is recorded to be the owner in column No. 4 and in column No. 5 Makbuja Bashindgan Deh. The entire land is recorded as Banjar Kadim On what basis the plaintiff claimed that the land is cultivable or he was in cultivating possession of it, remained unexplained. The position is no different in the Jamabandi of the year 1972 73, Ext. DC, where the ownership is recorded to be that of Thakurdwara Sahib and in possessory column the nature of the land is said to be Banjar Kadim, If in the year 1972-73 Thakurdwara Sahib was recorded to be owner as well as in possession of the land in dispute, it is really surprising as to how and on what basis adverse possession was claimed by the plaintiff and against whom. 19 In Ext. DD, which is copy of Khasra Girdawari of the year 1973-74 to 1976, Thakurdwara is entered as its owner and possession is that of the owner In respect of Khasra No 66/2, possession is recorded to be of Bashara Sadar, which was Shamlat Deh of the area, does not stand explained. It is not the Shamlat Deh that the proprietors were recorded to be in possession of the land. The position in the Khasra Girdawari entries of the year 1984-85 is also towards similar effect. In the ownership column the defendant is recorded, whereas, in the possessory column the entry is Makbuja Bashindgan Deh The kind of the land is recorded as Banjar Kadim How the Banjar Kadim is recorded as Makbuja Bashindgan Deh is another question, which stands unanswered. 20. In the ownership column the defendant is recorded, whereas, in the possessory column the entry is Makbuja Bashindgan Deh The kind of the land is recorded as Banjar Kadim How the Banjar Kadim is recorded as Makbuja Bashindgan Deh is another question, which stands unanswered. 20. At the costs of repetition, it may be observed that possession of Banjar Kadim is always to be with the owner. 21. In view of such pleadings and proof how the learned Courts below have to record a finding in favour of the plaintiff that he is owner adversely, is simply surprising. 22. The Courts of law while dealing with such sensitive issues are expected to be very careful and further expected to have in their mind the pleadings as well as the law applicable in respect of adverse possession. It simply cannot be believed that the learned Courts in the given situation were ignorant of the basic principles of civil law and procedure relating to the pleadings and proof. In case the property belonged to Thakurdwara, which in my opinion, would mean religious and charitable institution, the Courts of law have to act as a zealous guardians and have to treate this property like the property of a minor. There can, however, be no dispute that in case the plaintiff alleges and thereafter proves the ingredients of adverse possession, he shall have to be granted such declaration, if the case is made out. 23. So far as the present case is concerned, in my opinion, no such case has been made out on the existing material on the record. On the plaintiffs own showing that he was paying rent to the Mohatmin of the institution, it that position is accepted it would mean that he was claiming himself to be tenant of the land in question At what point of time, he has started claiming possession adversely to the knowledge of the true owner and by what overt act and proof and surprisingly in the present case the plaintiff himself in para 12 of the plaint has put the clock in the year 1967. 24. Concededly, ejectment proceedings had already been taken against the plaintiff and were finalised somewhere in the year 1985, immediately before the filing of the present suit. 25. 24. Concededly, ejectment proceedings had already been taken against the plaintiff and were finalised somewhere in the year 1985, immediately before the filing of the present suit. 25. In my considered opinion, both the learned Courts below have committed an error and illegality in granting a declaration to the plaintiff in the given situation. The impugned judgments are, consequently, ordered to be set aside, The case is remanded back to the learned trial Court for fresh decision in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made hereinabove in this judgment Costs to follow the events. Case remanded.