JUDGMENT P.K.Palli, J.(Oral):- The plaintiffs/appellants arc in second appeal before this Court laying challenge to the decree of reversal passed by the first appellate Court. The parties, here-in- after in this judgment, shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendant. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the suit land based on title. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant has illegally and unauthorisedly .encroached upon the suit land measuring 2 bighas 4 bighas was some -where in the month of July, 1980 and despite several requests, the defendant has not given back possession to the plaintiffs. 3. The defendant while laying contest to the suit has denied that he hiss made any encroachment on the suit land. It was also stated by him that he was not aware about the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Alternatively a plea of adverse possession has been taken by the defendant staling that he is in possession of the snit land since the year 1961. 4. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, granted to the plaintiffs a decree as prayed for by them. The first appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court holding that the defendant who was in adverse possession of the suit land, had ripened it in title and in the situation, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs stands dismissed. 5. Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, contends that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court deserves to be set aside as there were neither any pleading in respect of the adverse possession nor any proof placed on record by the defendant. According to the learned counsel, the issue of adverse possession which was rightly decided by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs, has been wrongly set aside without any reason. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff at length and on careful perusal of the record and the impugned judgment, I find that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. In the plaint the plaintiffs have made a clear averments that they are owners of the suit land as per Jamabandi of the year 1981 -82. Khasra numbers have been specifically given alongwith the area. 7. In the plaint the plaintiffs have made a clear averments that they are owners of the suit land as per Jamabandi of the year 1981 -82. Khasra numbers have been specifically given alongwith the area. In paras 2 and 3 of the written statement filed by the defendant, it has been said that he is not aware of the ownership of a particular Khasra number as he is an illiterate person. It has been further stated that the lands of the parties are contiguous and the defendant emphatically denied that he ever encroached upon the land belonging lo the plaintiffs. It has, however, been further added that the possession of the defendant over the suit land is from the times his predecessor-in-interest. The boundaries of the two lands were fixed long back and his possession dated back to the year 1961 when Consolidation Operations wore held in the village. Towards the end of paragraph 2 of the written statement, the defendant has further said that even if the plaintiffs are found to be the owners of the suit land, their rights stand extinguished on account of adverse possession of defendant since 1961 holding it adverse to the plaintiffs. 8. The only evidence that has been placed on record by the parties is the statement of one of the plaintiffs examined as PW-1 , Kanoongo examined as PW-2 and the defendant has made his statement as DW-I . 9. Ext. P-l is the Jamabandi of the year 1981-82 showing the plaintiffs to be the owners in possession of the suit land. Ext. P-2 is the report prepared by the Kanoongo who has proved it as PW-2. According to this report, encroachment was found on demarcation on 15.10.1985. ExtP-3 is the Tatima. This is the entire evidence placed, on record by the parties. 10. So far as the ownership of the plaintiff is concerned, even the first appellate Court while reversing the judgment passed by the trial Court, has held that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land. It is,- thus, the question of adverse possession only that needs consideration by this Court. 11. The written statement filed by the defendant has already been noticed above. Though the issue of adverse possession has been framed, yet strangely enough, ingredients claiming adverse possession have not been .given in the written statement which is the requirement of law. It is,- thus, the question of adverse possession only that needs consideration by this Court. 11. The written statement filed by the defendant has already been noticed above. Though the issue of adverse possession has been framed, yet strangely enough, ingredients claiming adverse possession have not been .given in the written statement which is the requirement of law. It is also too well known that possession, how-so-ever long it may be, cannot be treated as adverse possession unless there is some avert act by the person claiming that right or here, is an intention to show to the real owner that the possession being held. by him in adverse and has been made clear in a particular manner and at a particular time. Even if it is accepted that a plea has been raised, unimpeachable evidence is required to be led in proof thereof which is conspicuously missing in his case. There is a bald statement of the defendant only who has appeared as his own witness. 12. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. The parties arc immediate neighbours and their fields are contiguous to each other and there is a regular boundary bifurcating the two fields. Thee way I look at the m alter, it was a case of encroachment and in reply, the defendant has come with the plea that he has not made any encroachment on the side of the plaintiffs. In the written statement the defendant has, strangely, stated that he is not aware of the ownership of the plaintiffs over a particular Khasra number he being illiterate. 13. The first appellate Court in order to hold that the defendant has perfected his title by way of adverse possession, has chosen to rely upon the statement of one of the plaintiffs examined a& PW-I in holding that the possession of the defendant dates back to the year 1961 when Consolidation operations were held in the village. Assuming it to be so, as the boundaries of the two fields are over-lapping, the plaintiffs might not have come to know of the encroachment made by the other side which fact came to the notice some-where in the year 1980. The demarcation report was obtained and it is only thereafter that the plaintiffs came to know about the exact area encroached upon by the defendant. 14. The demarcation report was obtained and it is only thereafter that the plaintiffs came to know about the exact area encroached upon by the defendant. 14. Admittedly, there is no entry m the revenue record supporting the defendant to be in possession of the suit land. In case it was so, the entries in .the Girdawari’ would have been made in favour of the defendant. 15. Undisputedly; the plaintiff have proved that the defendant has encroached upon their land. It would also, thus: appear that even the Revenue authorities were not aware of the possession of the defendant otherwise ‘Girdawarr’ would have been prepared-in his favour. Be that as it may. The first appellate Court has certainly gone wrong in setting aside the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on the issue of adverse possession. 16. In view of what has been said above, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is ordered to be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is up-held. 17. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be however, no order as to costs.