JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J. This is Plaintiff's second appeal u/s 100, CPC Code. The following substantial question of law was formulated by order dated 7-12-1987 at the time of admission of this appeal:- Whether in the context of facts and circumstances of the case, the Defendant has rightly been held to have perfected his title by adverse possession? It is not disputed that Khasra No. 52/2 area 1.25 acre of village Palia belongs to Plaintiff Dilliprasad. On the southern side of this field Khasra No. 52/3 area 1.23 acre belongs to Defendant Ramdayal who had purchased it in the year 1978 from Daulat Singh. There was an embankment, between these two fields. The Plaintiff's case is that in the year 1979 he came to know that the Defendant had encroached upon 0.50 acre of land of his field Khasra No. 52/2. He got this land demarcated by making an application to the Tehsildar. The Revenue Inspector carried out the demarcation work on 27-12-1980 in the presence of the Defendant and confirmed that 0.50 acre of land of khasra No. 52/2 is in possession of the Defendant. The Defendant has denied the encroachment of the land belonging to the Plaintiff. In the alternative he has set up the plea of adverse possession on this land. According to him he is in possession of this land for last four years and before him his predecessor-in-title Daulat Singh was in its actual possession. The right of the Plaintiff on this land, if any, has been extinguished. The trial Court after appreciation of the evidence of both the sides has held that the Defendant has encroached upon 0.50 acre of land of khasra No. 52/2 belonging to the Plaintiff. The trial Court negatived the plea of adverse possession set up by the Defendant. The Defendant has been directed to deliver the possession of 0.50 acre of land of khasra No. 52/2 to the Plaintiff. He has also been directed to pay mesne-profit at the rate of Rs. 500/-per annum to the Plaintiff. The first Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and held that the Defendant has acquired title to the land in dispute by adverse possession. He has also been directed to pay mesne-profit at the rate of Rs. 500/-per annum to the Plaintiff. The first Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and held that the Defendant has acquired title to the land in dispute by adverse possession. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides and after careful scrutiny of the judgment of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court and also documentary and oral evidence on record this Court is of the opinion that the first Appellate Court, has committed an error of law in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court. Narendra Kumar (P. W. 2) has deposed that he was Revenue Inspector and on 27-12-1980 he had measured the land of khasra 52/2. He had prepared the map Ex. P-1 and the field book Ex. P-2. He found that the Defendant encroached upon 0.50 acre of land of khasra No. 52/2. He has shown encroached portion in red colour in the map Ex. P-1. He had done the measurement work in the presence of the Defendant. The only question which was put up to him in cross-examination was whether he had seen any drain on the spot and to this question he replied that he did not see any drain. On this ground alone the first Appellate Court has disbelieved the testimony of the Revenue Inspector. It is found from the evidence of Gopichand (D. W. 2), Nanhe (D. W. 3) and Pooran (D. W. 4) that the tube-well from which this drain came has been closed ten years ago. It means there is no water in the drain from the tube-well for the last ten years. In this situation if Narendra Kumar Shrivastava (P. W. 2) did not see any drain on the spot at the time of demarcation, he cannot be disbelieved on that ground. A perusal of the field book Ex. P-2 and the map Ex. P-1 shows that the measurement has been properly carried out. It is interesting to note that the area of khasra No. 52/2 is 1.25 acre and the area of khasra No. 52/3 is 1.23 acre. Therefore, it can be easily ascertained whether the Defendant has made any encroachment on the land belonging to the Plaintiff. P-2 and the map Ex. P-1 shows that the measurement has been properly carried out. It is interesting to note that the area of khasra No. 52/2 is 1.25 acre and the area of khasra No. 52/3 is 1.23 acre. Therefore, it can be easily ascertained whether the Defendant has made any encroachment on the land belonging to the Plaintiff. The trial Court had rightly held on the basis of the evidence of Narendra Kumar Shrivastava (P. W. 2), map Ex. P-1 and field book Ex. P-3 prepared by him that the Defendant has taken possession of 0.50 acre of land belonging to the Plaintiff from khasra No. 52/2. The first Appellate Court committed grave error in discarding the evidence of the Revenue Inspector. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari AIR 2001 SC 965 that the first Appellate Court while reversing a finding of fact must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial Court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the Court hearing a further appeal that the first Appellate Court had discharged the duty expected of it. This Court confirms the finding of the trial Court that the Defendant committed an encroachment of 0.50 acre of land bearing khasra No. 52/2 belonging to the Plaintiff.R.F. 22 Then comes the question of adverse possession. The burden is on the Defendant to prove affirmatively that he is in possession of the suit land for more than twelve years adverse to the right of the Plaintiff. He must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner. The Defendant must clearly establish when the adverse possession commenced and the nature of such possession. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish the facts necessary to prove adverse possession ( Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs. Smt. Raj Kumar Sharma and others, ). Ramdayal (D. W. 1) has deposed that he has purchased khasra No. 52/3 from Daulat Singh in the year 1978. The suit was filed on 29-7-1981. He has further deposed that there is a drain emanating from the tube-well and it divides the fields of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Smt. Raj Kumar Sharma and others, ). Ramdayal (D. W. 1) has deposed that he has purchased khasra No. 52/3 from Daulat Singh in the year 1978. The suit was filed on 29-7-1981. He has further deposed that there is a drain emanating from the tube-well and it divides the fields of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. According to him this drain is in existence for the last 17-18 years. He has further stated that Daulat Singh was in possession of the land for 10-12 years. He has not produced Daulat Singh for his evidence. He could be the proper person to tell when his possession began. If the Defendant wanted to tack the person of his predecessor-in-title to his own possession it was necessary for him to examine Daulat Singh so that his testimony could be tested in cross-examination. As Daulat Singh has not been put in the witness box by the Defendant, an adverse inference must be drawn against him. Gopi Chand (D. W. 2) has stated that drain was built 20-25 years ago. In cross-examination in para 2 he has stated that the tube-well has been constructed 5-7 years ago and thereafter the drain has been built. Therefore, his evidence in the examination-in-chief that the drain is existing for 20-25 years is not true. Nanhe (D. W. 3) has stated that the drain was on the dividing embankment which is existing for the last 15-16 years. In cross-examination he has stated that the tube-well has been closed 10 years ago and since then the water does not come in the drain. Pooran (D. W. 4) has stated that Daulat Prasad was in possession of this land for 15 years and now the Defendant is in its possession. In cross-examination he has stated that the tube-well is closed for the last 12 years. On the other hand Plaintiff Dilliprasad (P. W. 1) has deposed that he came to know in the year 1979 that the Defendant is in possession of 0.50 acre of land belonging to him. In cross-examination he has stated that the drain is not the dividing line between the two fields. The drain is existing in his own land. There was an embankment and that has been damaged by the Defendant. In cross-examination he has stated that the drain is not the dividing line between the two fields. The drain is existing in his own land. There was an embankment and that has been damaged by the Defendant. On the basis of the oral evidence discussed above, the trial Court held that the plea of adverse possession set up by the Defendant is not established. The trial Court has given cogent reasons in support of his finding. The evidence adduced by the Defendant to establish the plea of adverse possession is very infirm. It is of shaky character. It is not established when the possession of the Defendant or his predecessor-in-title on the suit land began. The first Appellate Court has wrongly reversed the finding of the trial Court on this point. The appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court did not suffer from any material irregularity and therefore, the first Appellate Court could not interfere with it. This fact ought to have weighed with the first Appellate Court, that the trial Court had the advantage of watching the conduct and demeanour of the witnesses appearing before it. The reversal of the judgment of the trial Court by the first Appellate Court was improper. In the result this appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court are set aside and those of the trial Court are restored. Final Result : Allowed