JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Shri R L Raghu, Additional District Judge, Mandi, passed by him in Civil Appeal 56/90, decided on 1712-1993 By means of impugned judgment the first appellate court has upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Joginder Nagar in Civil Suit No. 120/s89 dated 8-3 1990 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that suit was filed for declaration with consequential relief of injunction by the plaintiff PI a raised by the plaintiff in the suit was that land measuring 704 Sq. Yards and 5 Sq. Feet situated Muhal Joginder Nagar, District Mandi comprised in khata/ khatauni No 390 min/610 min/1, khasra No. U41/1 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) is owned and possessed by him and declaration was sought to this effect and consequently relief of injunction was prayed restraining the defendants from ejecting him from the same pursuant to the orders passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Class, Joginder Nagar in proceedings under Section 163 of the H P. Land Revenue Act on 21-6-1988. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit land on the basis of his being in adverse possession of the same for the last more than 40 years and therefore, according to him, his right was indefeasible. According to the plaintiff the proceedings culminating in passing of Ejectment orders on 21-6-1988 in file No 16, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Crade Joginder Nagar in exercise of powers vested in him under section 163 of the H. P, Land Revenue Act are not sustainable either in fact or in law and since the defendants have failed to treat the said order as null and void as well as to concede his ownership over the suit land, hence the necessity of filing this suit. Exemption from issuing notice under section «0 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code was prayed for which appears to have been granted by the court below. Exemption from issuing notice under section «0 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code was prayed for which appears to have been granted by the court below. 2; This suit was resisted and contested by the defendants where amongst other things pleaded that the order of ejectment passed in favour of the State and against the plaintiff from the suit land is legal and suit was bad for want of notice, court having no jurisdiction as also its being barred by time and estoppel was also pleaded as a defence I was further pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff had encroached upon the land in the year 1988 with an intention to grab the same and his plea that he is in possession for the last 40 years and his having become owner by adverse possession was also controverted. In these circumstances parties went to trial on the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit land for the last more than 40 years and has become its owner by way of adverse possession as alleged ? O P.P. 2 Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present from ? O.P.D. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act, conduct and acqui-scence to file the suit ? O.P.D. 4 4. Whether the plaintiff has got not no enforceable cause of action ? O.P.P. 5. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this 6. Whether no legal and valid notice under section 80 C P C was served upon the defendant, if so its effect ? O.P.D. 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not within time ? O.P.D. 8. Relief. All these issues were decided against the plaintiff and consequently the suit was dismissed. * 3 The judgment and decree passed by the trial court was questioned before the first appellate court, who by means of impugned judgment and decree assailed dismissal of the suit ordered by the trial court, hence this 4. On the other hand Shri Chaudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General, appearing for the State has submitted that plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit land as alleged by him. On the other hand Shri Chaudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General, appearing for the State has submitted that plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit land as alleged by him. Not only this but it was father urged on behalf of the defendant state that there is ample, oral as well as documentary evidence on record to establish that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land as encroacher is of recent origin i.e. of 1988. 5. According to the learned Assisting Advocate General findings regarding pontiff being not in adverse possession are concurrent finding of fact based on due, proper and correct appreciation of evidence and do no call for any interference in this appeal and further there is no question of law much less any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal which calls for interference present 6. In order to succeed on his plea of adverse possession, the plaintiff was required to show as to what was the starting point of possession since he came into peaceful, open and exclusive possession to the knowledge and exclusion of the real owner i.e. respondent-State, This starting point is necessary for reckoning the period of limitation of 30 years This would enable the court to ascertain whether the possession had the element of hostile animus or not. Because howsoever long possession may be unless hostile animus is not only pleaded but is also proved by cogent and reliable evidence, long standing possession by itself cannot be meant to assume that it is adverse to the real owner. 7. In the present case it has come on record that settlement had taken place in the year 1960-61 Joginder Nagar where the land in suit is situate In case the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land for 40 years prior to the filing of the suit, entry of such possession would have found mention in the settlement record. Admittedly, no such entry has been proved on record. Admittedly, no such entry has been proved on record. On the other hand defendants have proved that when the encroachment was noticed by DW-1 Paras Ram, Kanungo in the year 1988 after the wheat crop had been sown by the plaintiff the encroachment was reported thereafter and action appears to have been initiated in file-No. 16, which was instituted on 18-2-1988 under section 163 of the H V Land Revenue Act against the plaintiff before the Assistant Collector 1st grade, in these circumstances the plea of adverse possession raised by the plaintiff must fail when it is examined on the touch stone of the requirements required by law to prove adverse possession of the parties pleading it. Oral evidence examined by the plaintiff is himself as PW-1 PW 2 is Punnu Ram and PW-3 is Mehar Chand. Plaintiff has claimed his cultivatory possession over the suit land for the last 35-40 years which has remain" ed undisturbed. This plea of the plaintiff has been supported by his other 2 PWs, Punnu Ram and Mehar Chand. The oral evidence does not firstly establish the adverse possession of the plaintiff and secondly it is not worthy of credence for establishing the case of the plaintiff. 9 On the other hand from the statement of DW-1 Paras Ram Kanungo, it is clear that before sowning the wheat crop in the year 1988 by plaintiff after encroachment over the suit land, in the previous year the land has been shown to be vacant. The being so, the presumption attached to the jamabandis under the provisions of H. P Land Revenue Act is not rebutted That being so, the appeal of plaintiff must fail. 10. In Ex. DA, jamabandi for the year 1961-62, suit land is shown to be in possession of Match Box Factory of which one Raghu Nath Dass was the Director This also belies the stand of the plaintiff and also reaffirms the presumption of the jamabandis Besides this, findings of the courts below recording the plaintiff not being in adverse possession are purely findings of fact which could only be interfered with in case the plaintiff was able to point out that there is either non-consideration of material, oral as well as documentary evidence or Dis-appreciation of evidence which is of such a nature that shows that the courts below have fallen into error because of such omission/dis-appreciation. In this behalf it may be worthwhile to point out that Shri Gopal Sharma, Advocate, was not in a position to point any such infirmity which warranted interference in this appeal. That being so, it is clear that the plaintiff has not been able to pursuaded this court that the impugned judgment and decree calls for any interference. 11. No other point has been urged in support of this appeal. As result aforesaid discussion, it is obvious that there is no merit in this appeal Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs which is quantified at Rs. 1,000. Appeal dismssed.