JUDGMENT Arun Kumar God, J. - Appellant was defendant before the trial Court and respondents were plaintiffs. They are being referred to hereinafter as such. 2. This appeal was admitted on 23.8.1995 on the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether there has been misreading of pleadings and evidence by the learned District Judge and he failed to exercise the jurisdiction in accordance with law ? 2. Whether the plea of adverse possession has been established by the appellant by oral and documentary evidence ? 3. Whether the plea of adverse possession has been properly raised and proved by the appellant ? 4. Whether there were no legal grounds to justify the setting aside the decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, Palampur ? 3. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for possession of land comprised in KhasraNo. 277/1 as per Tatima measuring 0-1-39 Hects., Khata No. 4 min, Khatauni No. 8 min, as per Misal Hakiyat Bandobast Jadid situate in Mauza Ganoh, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra. Case as per set out in the plaint was that land comprised in Khasra No. 277 (of which Khasra No. 277/1 is a part) is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. Defendant who was owner of the adjacent land had encroached upon Khasra No. 277/1 supra in the absence of the plaintiffs in the middle of July, 1981. Residence of the plaintiffs is at a distance from the land in suit. Taking undue advantage of this position, he has encroached upon the land. Its approximate area is about 8 marlas. Demarcation report was obtained from the Revenue Officer on 14.4.1984. Thereafter, defendant was asked to give up possession by vacating the aforesaid land, but without any consequence. Hence this suit. 4. When put to notice defendant defined the claim of the plaintiffs of his having entered into the forcible possession/encroached over the land in suit. He claimed to be in possession of the same for the last 31 years, having ripened his title into ownership. This was open, hostile, continuous to the knowledge of the plaintiffs as well as their predecessor. With a view to support this plea of adverse possession, it was urged that defendant had planted Kinnu, lemon and other trees over the land in suit. Demarcation report was stated to be incorrect and illegal besides being one sided. This was open, hostile, continuous to the knowledge of the plaintiffs as well as their predecessor. With a view to support this plea of adverse possession, it was urged that defendant had planted Kinnu, lemon and other trees over the land in suit. Demarcation report was stated to be incorrect and illegal besides being one sided. Plea of suit being not maintainable, plaintiffs having no locus standi and it is being barred by time, estoppel and being bad non-joinder of parties were also set up as defence for dismissal of the suit. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 20.5.1988: 1. Whether the defendant took forcible possession of the suit land in the month of July, 1981 ? 2. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession ? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 7. Relief. 6. Trial court decided Issue No. 1 against the plaintiffs and issue No. 2 in favour of the defendants and thereby dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court preferred an appeal. When it came up before the learned appellate Court below, the appeal was allowed and consequently suit stands decreed for possession in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. This is how present second appeal was admitted as aforesaid. 7. Before dealing with the respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties in this appeal at the time of hearing, it may be noted that the defendant has specifically set a plea of adverse possession. In my considered view once place of adverse possession is set up, it pre-supposes that title of the property vests in some body else, at least not in the party claiming to be in adverse possession, defendant in the present case. Thereafter, next requirement to support such a plea is as to what is the starting point from which the possession is to be treated as adverse for the purpose of calculating limitation. Thereafter, next requirement to support such a plea is as to what is the starting point from which the possession is to be treated as adverse for the purpose of calculating limitation. These facts coupled with the openness, exclusions and hostile animus to continue to remain in possession to the knowledge and exclusion of the true owner like defendant in the present case, when established on record proves adverse possession. 8. In the context of adverse possession it may also be worthwhile to observe that howsoever long possession it may be, unless it is also established that there was hostile animus to the knowledge and exclusion openly by the person claiming to be in possession, it will not become adverse to the true owner. Something more is required. Besides this unless it is also shown that from what point of time persons claimed the hostile title to the property, it cannot be held merely on the basis of possession that it has become hostile. Therefore, starting time to reckon period of 12 years is also a condition precedent to the established by the person claiming to be in adverse possession like defendant in the present case. 9. Shri Verma learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that the appellate Court below has gravely erred in reversing the findings recorded by the trial Court while deciding issue No. 1 and 2. Such findings according to him cannot be sustained on the basis of the evidence on record. He further pointed out that his client has been able to establish his adverse possession and thus to have become owner as aforesaid. Therefore he has prayed for allowing this appeal by reversing the impugned order. Findings recorded by the appellate Court below is the result of misreading and there was no ground much less legal ground to interfere with the question of adverse possession having been decided against the plaintiffs in the suit. All these pleas have been controverted by Shri Gupta learned counsel for the plaintiffs. According to him there was no evidence produced by the defendant to support his claim of adverse possession. According to him, possession of his client is recorded in the revenue records and prior to it of his predecessor-in-title. Appellate court below has rightly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence. Thus has interfered with the judgment of the trial Court and has rightly decreed the suit. According to him, possession of his client is recorded in the revenue records and prior to it of his predecessor-in-title. Appellate court below has rightly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence. Thus has interfered with the judgment of the trial Court and has rightly decreed the suit. He has prayed for upholding the decision in question. 10. All the substantial questions of law extracted above are inter connected and with a view to avoid repetition are being taken up together. 11. Land was demarcated twice by the revenue authorities before the suit was filed, and thereafter it was demarcated by a Local Commissioner appointed by the trial Court. No doubt in the first report area was less but in the subsequent two reports one given by Naib Tehsildar Ved Brat PW, and the other given by Local Commissioner Sh. Suresh Chaudhary, Advocate proves that the land measuring 0-1-39 hect. had been encroached upon by the defendant. 12. In this behalf it may also be observed that the defendant admits the demarcation having been carried out by PW-4 Ved Brat, Naib Tehsildar. Defendant while appearing as a witness has admitted that both i.e. PW4 and Sh. Suresh Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate Local Commissioner demarated the land in question. However, according to him this demarcation was not acceptable to him. So far demarcation carried out by Mr. Chaudhary vide Ex.PA is concerned, it was objected to. However, those objections have been dismissed and thus it was made part of the record. 13. Ext. PX is a statement made by the defendant Om Parkash during the course of trial which is at page 165 of the trial Court file. When it is translated into English it reads as under :- "Statement of Om Parkash defendant stated that the parties at their own expense will get demarcation carried out after getting Local Commissioner appointed through court. In case any land is found in his possession he will give up his possession demarcation may be carried out as per old and new records." 14. This statement of the defendant was accepted on behalf of the plaintiff by their learned counsel who stated that statement of the defendant has been heard and understood. It is correct and case may be decided according to it. 15. This statement was made on 13.11.1986. This statement of the defendant was accepted on behalf of the plaintiff by their learned counsel who stated that statement of the defendant has been heard and understood. It is correct and case may be decided according to it. 15. This statement was made on 13.11.1986. Record of the trial Court further shows that the plaintiffs filed an application for decreeing the suit on the basis of this statement after receipt of the report of Local Commissioner. However, this prayer was declined. 16. Defendant pleaded in his written statement to have planted number of fruit trees over the land in question. There is nothing in the demarcation report regarding existence of such trees. In case trees exited at the spot in the ordinary course of things those were bound to find a mention in the report. 17. Further permissive possession or long possession by itself does not constitute adverse possession. There is material on record in the pleadings and in the statement of the defendant that the he is coming in possession of the suit land since the time of his father. If that was so how they entered into possession and how. General statement by him that he is in possession for more than 31 years is totally meaningless. There has to be a specific point of time which has to be starting point of limitation for calculating adverse possession. From such point of time party alleging adverse possession has to show what are over facts committed by him holding out himself to be owner of the property in question to the knowledge and exclusion of the true owner. There is no such evidence. 18. Reference was made on behalf of the defendant to cases The Punjab Wakf Board v. The State of Punjab and others, 1992 PLJ 599, Chandrabha-gabai and others v. Ramkrishna and others, AIR 1998 SC 2549 and Kalika Prasad and another v. Chhatrapal Singh (dead) by LRs., AIR 1997 SC 1699. As will be seen hereinafter none of these decisions advances his case. 19. In the Punjab Wakf Board v. The State of Punjab and others (supra) a suit was filed after a gap of 17 years when there was positive evidence to the effect that the suit land along with other land was acquired and steps were initiated in that behalf. After acquisition suit appears to have been filed by the Punjab Wakf Board. After acquisition suit appears to have been filed by the Punjab Wakf Board. It claimed possession as according to it property was trespassed upon by the defendants. Evidence of construed3n as owner by the P.S.E.B. was positively there and in those circumstances possession was held to be adverse. Raising of construction by itself is one major overtact without its being challenged within the period of limitation. Therefore, in this background suit was dismissed. 20. So far the decision in Kalika Prasad and another (supra) is concerned again this decision has no applicability to the facts of this case. Reason being that in this case initially possession was permissive under power of attorney. This was later-on cancelled. Meanwhile the estate was abolished and the appellate obtained Patta, no notice was given to the respondent and no action was taken to eject him from the land in suit. He had remained in uninterrupted possession for over 12 years. It was in these circumstances that possession was held to be adverse. 21. Similar decision in the case of AIR 1998 Sc 2599 (supra) is a judgment based on its own facts, as such it also does not in any manner advance the case of the defendant. 22. Decision of this Court in Tilak Raj v. Bhagat Ram and another, 1997(1) Sim. L.C. 281 is near to the facts of the present case, wherein almost on identical facts the plea of adverse possession was negatived by this Court. What was held and is relevant in the present case was as under :- "15. Equally, it can be said that once the defendant has failed to established his adverse possession for the statutory period, a suit for possession based on title cannot be dismissed as being time barred on the ground that the same was filed after the expiry of twelve years from the date of dispossession. The defendant, in the present case, while appearing as DW1 has stated that he is coming in possession of the land in dispute for the last 18/19 years and that the plaintiffs have never been in possession thereof. He has further stated that the plaintiffs had never objected to his possession nor he had at any time paid rent to them. It is nowhere in the statement of the defendant that his possession was hostile to the plaintiffs in denial of their title and to their knowledge. 23. He has further stated that the plaintiffs had never objected to his possession nor he had at any time paid rent to them. It is nowhere in the statement of the defendant that his possession was hostile to the plaintiffs in denial of their title and to their knowledge. 23. In case Indira v. Arumugam and another, AIR 1999 SC 1549, it was held that where a suit based on title is for possession and it is established on the basis of relevant documents, he cannot be non- suited unless of course adverse possession is proved. High Court having ignored this aspect of the case as also change in the provisions of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as well as Article 142 of the Act, 1908, matter was remanded back to the High Court for decision afresh. 24. It was the duty of the first appellate Court as a final court of fact to have made a critical analysis of the matter before it and in my considered view it had rightly done so and only thereafter decree of the trial Court has been reversed in present Second Appeal. 25. High Court would ordinarily be reluctant to interfere with the findings of fact based on evidence as recorded by the court below, but there is no absolute bar in exercising of such powers. This what was held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Harpool Singh (dead) through his LRs., 2000(5) SCC 652. 26. From the records of the case, I am satisfied that lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the decree of the trial Court on the basis of evidence both oral and documentary. As such there is no misreading of pleadings and/or evidence on the plea of adverse possession by the learned appellate Court below. Learned appellate Court below was further perfectly justified in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, who had committed grave error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. Plea of adverse possession has not been proved in accordance with law. As such this is an additional ground to uphold the decree of the appellate Court below. 27. No other point has been urged. 28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.