JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Appellant (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff), filed a suit initially for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as defendant)* This suit was based on title. Suit land measuring 3 biswas, comprised in khasra No. 920, Khata/ Khatauni No.192 min/300 min, as per Jamabandi for the year 1982-83, situate in Phati Bari, Kothi Baragarh, Tehsil and District Kullu. Plaintiff claimed that he had constructed a temporary wooden Khokha (Kiosk) four years ago, (to the filing of the suit) over the suit land. This was meant for storage of fuel wood and grass etc. Defendant having no right, title or interest over it started threatening on 6.11.1985 to forcibly occupy the same by raising construction over it after demolishing the Khokha of the plaintiff. With a view to accomplish the construction, he started collecting construction material at the spot and further attempted to dig out the foundations. Despite having been called upon to desist from his such acts and also not to interfere with plaintiffs possession over the suit land, defendant refused to do so, therefore, suit had to be filed. While praying for a decree for mandatory prohibitory injunction to the effect that he should not interfere in any manner whatsoever, he should also not raise any sort of construction over the suit land. Further prayer was made, that in case it is proved that defendant has dispossessed the plaintiff, in such a situation, a decree for possession by demolition be also granted in favour of the plaintiff. 2. This suit was contested and resisted by the defendant. While disputing and denying the title of the plaintiff he also set up the plea of adverse possession regarding the suit land, as according to him, he was in its possession for the last more than 40 years from the time of his predecessors. His further case was that plaintiff was never in possession over the suit land. It was also claimed that this land was being used during marriages and other functions in his family for entertaining people, who participated in such functions. 3. During the pendency of the suit, plaint was amended but no written statement to the amended plaint was filed. 4. Trial Court after framing the following issues held issue No. 2 in favour of the defendant and issue No. 7-A against the plaintiff. Other issues were found in the negative. 3. During the pendency of the suit, plaint was amended but no written statement to the amended plaint was filed. 4. Trial Court after framing the following issues held issue No. 2 in favour of the defendant and issue No. 7-A against the plaintiff. Other issues were found in the negative. Finally suit was dismissed. 1. Whether the defendant is interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute? OPP. 2. Whether the defendant is in adverse possession of the property in dispute and has become owner by adverse possession? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is barred by limited? OPD. 4. Whether the grant of nautor is liable to be cancelled as the plaintiff violated the conditions of patta as alleged? If so, its effect? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the suit? OPD. 6. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD. 7. Whether the defendant is entitled to the special cost? OPD. 7-A Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP. 8. Relief. 5. In appeal, finding of the trial Court on issue No. 2 that defendant was in adverse possession of the suit land was reversed. Learned appellate Court below further held that since land was granted by way of Nautor and the Patta Nautor having not been seen the light of the day, therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the suit land. As such, the appeal was dismissed, thus affirming the decree of the trial Court. 6. Regular Second Appeal was filed by the plaintiff in this Court. This was allowed vide judgement dated 23.7.1998, consequently suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Against this judgement Civil Review No.3 of 2000 was filed. This was also dismissed on 26.5.2000. Defendant took up the matter to Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4198-4199 of 2002 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 16348-16349/2000. While allowing the appeal, judgements dated 23.7.1998, Regular Second Appeal, as also in Review Petition, dated 26.5.2000, both ware set aside and the matter was remitted to this Court to formulate substantial questions of law, if any, arising on the facts of the case and thereafter to proceed to dispose of the matter afresh and in accordance with law after hearing the parties. 7. 7. When the matter was taken up after remand from the Supreme Court, following substantial questions of law, which arose from the pleadings of the parties were framed on 12.12.2002:— "1. Whether a party who sets up the plea of adverse possession thereby concedes and admits the title of the person who is the true owner of such property and against whom such a plea is set up? 2. When a party fails to establish plea of adverse possession set up as a defence, should a decree follow in favour of the rightful owner on the basis of his such title? 3. Whether the title of the plaintiff stood duly proved on account of the mutation of the grant of nautor which is the only document prepared under the special, nautor scheme, could the lower appellate Court hold the plaintiff to be not the owner in possession by insisting on production of patta which is not issued?" 8. Before proceeding further in this appeal, it may be appropriate to observe that the grant of Nautor in favour of the plaintiff was under the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land to Landless Persons and Other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975. 9. Clause 7 of this Scheme anongst other things speaks of the sanction order of Nautor land to be made by Tehsildar on the application and its operative part entered in the register to be maintained for the purpose in the Tehsil. Issue of Patta under the Scheme was not necessary. 10. Under Clause 10 of this Scheme nutation of land to be granted under the Scheme to a landless person or to other eligible person, was to be attested immediately after the payment of Nazarana by the grantee either in lump sum or on payment of 1st instalment of the Nazarana, as the case may be. 11. Before dealing with respective contentions on the aforesaid substantial questions of law, it may be appropriate to notice here that suit was filed regarding khasra No. 920. Thus both parties knew qua what land they are litigating against each other in the suit. They were further well aware that they have to succeed or fall by establishing their respective pleas qua this land only. Thus both parties knew qua what land they are litigating against each other in the suit. They were further well aware that they have to succeed or fall by establishing their respective pleas qua this land only. A reference to the written statement of the defendant clearly indicates that he throughout in his written statement has harped upon to be in exclusive possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession for over more than 40 years. In my considered view, once the plea of adverse possession was set up qua suit land by him, it was explicitly understood and known to the defendant, that he was claiming right against its true owner, in the instant case the plaintiff. Finding on issue No. 2 recorded by the trial Court that defendant was in adverse possession of the suit land, was reversed by the first appellate Court. Admittedly defendant is not aggrieved by such finding, as he has not filed Cross-objections. What is its effect will be seen hereinafter. 12. In addition to above, it has also to be shown by the defendant claiming adverse possession against the true owner i.e. the plaintiff in the present case, that what is the starting point for reckoning period of limitation for establishing the adverse possession. What was the overt-acts committed by him to the knowledge, exclusion, openly with hostile animus to the true owner, asserting his own title against such owner. Once these facts are collectively established by legally acceptable and reliable evidence, and at the same time if continued for a period of 12 years is established, a person can claim to be having hostile title qua a particular property like suit land in the instant case. 13. Howsoever long may have been the possession unless overt-acts, with hostile animus are also simultaneously established, mere long possession by itself does not establish adverse possession. A person claiming adverse possession, a litigant like defendant against its real/true owner, he has to establish it beyond any shadow of doubt, because there is no right, much less equity in his favour. 14. It is also by now well settled that plea of adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact and has to be shown actually, visibly, exclusively, hostile over a continued period of time as prescribed by law. 15. 14. It is also by now well settled that plea of adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact and has to be shown actually, visibly, exclusively, hostile over a continued period of time as prescribed by law. 15. Above all this matter is no more res-integra in view of a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and others, 2004(4) Scale 856. What was held in the context of adverse possession while dealing with that plea and has material bearing so far present appeal is concerned, is extracted hereinbelow:— "10. Now we will turn to the aspect of adverse possession in the context of the present case. Appellants averred that the plea of the respondent based on title of the suit property and the plea of adverse possession are mutually exclusive. Thus finding of the High Court that the tile of Government of India over the suit property by way of adverse possession is assailed. 11. In the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time wont affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is nee vi, nee clam nee precario, that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See: SM. Karim v. Bibi Sakinal, AIR 1964 SC 1254, Parsinni v. Sukhi, (1993) 4 SCC 375 and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567). Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Karim v. Bibi Sakinal, AIR 1964 SC 1254, Parsinni v. Sukhi, (1993) 4 SCC 375 and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567). Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession (Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma, (1996) 8 SCC 128). 12. Plaintiff, filing a title suit should be very clear about the origin of title over the property. He must specifically plead it. (See: S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakinal AIR 1964 SC 1254). In P. Periasami v. P. Periathambi (1995) 6 SCC 523 this Court ruled that - "Whenever the plea of adverse possession is projected, inherent in the plea is that some one else was the owner of the property." The pleas on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Dealing with Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1 SCC 639, that is similar to the case in hand, this Court held : "As regards the first plea, it is inconsistent with the second plea. Having come into possession under the agreement, he must disclaim his right there under and plead and prove assertion of his independent hostile adverse possession to the knowledge of the transferor or his successor in title or interest and that the latter had acquiesced to his illegal possession during the entire period of 12 years, i.e., up to completing the period of his title by prescription nee in. nee clam, nee precario. nee clam, nee precario. Since the appellants claim is founded on Section 53-A, it goes without saying that he admits by implication that he came into possession of land lawfully under the agreement and continued to remain in possession till date of the suit. Thereby the plea of adverse possession is not available to the appellant." 16. Mr. Sood, learned Counsel for the defendant by referring to the pleadings as well as statement of witnesses particularly of PW-4 Patwari, mutation Ext.DW-6/A produced by his client, submitted that plaintiff has failed to establish the identity of the land granted to him. As according to him, there is no evidence connecting the suit land with the land granted under Scheme of 1975 supra. Therefore, reversing the finding on issue No. 2 by the appellate Court and his client having not taken any action as per law by challenging the said finding is of no significance. Further per him, it was for the plaintiff to have first proved the grant of Nautor in his favour and then having connected that it was the suit land which was granted to him, to maintain the suit in question. This plea was controverted by Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff. He submitted that so far his client is concerned, he has set up a clear cut case that the suit land was allotted to him by way of Nautor. As such, the stand of his client is clear and unarrbiguous so far Nautor granted. As such, plea of suit land having not been either identified and/or connected with khasra No. 920 is without any substance and is liable to be rejected. 17. In this behalf when a reference is made to the pleadings of the parties, as well as to the statements of the witnesses in the trial Court one fact is crystal clear in unambiguous terms, that those relate to the suit land only, which is khasra No. 920. Therefore, the plea of Mr. Sood that plaintiff has failed to connect and/or identify the land granted to by him by way of Nautor with khasra No. 920 has no substance in the circumstances of this case and is hereby rejected. 18. Therefore, the plea of Mr. Sood that plaintiff has failed to connect and/or identify the land granted to by him by way of Nautor with khasra No. 920 has no substance in the circumstances of this case and is hereby rejected. 18. Another reason to take this view is, that it is not the case of the defendant that he is in possession of some other land, which was not allotted by way of Nautor to the plaintiff, (qua which relief is claimed by the plaintiff in his suit). Defendant was well aware, as well as alive to the situation what is his case and what he is required to establish. As such, there is no dispute qua the identity of the suit land vis-a-vis the land that allotted to the plaintiff by way of Nautor. 19. So far observation of the learned first appellate Court, that the main foundation of the plaintiffs claim i.e. Patta Nautor having not seen the light of the day during the entire proceedings is concerned, this observation is wholly unwarranted in the face of the Scheme of 1975 referred to hereinabove. Plaintiffs case in this behalf is that mutation has been sanctioned of the land granted to him. It may be appropriate to observe here that, it is also not the case of the defendant that plaintiff was allotted some other land and/or was put in possession thereof. His written statement as well as statement as a witness together with his other oral evidence, clearly establishes that he is in possession of the suit land for the last 40 years being and also in its adverse possession. Therefore, in my opinion, both the Courts below fell into error in ignoring this vital aspect of the case. 20. Courts below appear to have been influenced by the spot inspection note of the learned trial Court, which was there on its file. Suffice it to say in this behalf that inspection note cannot be a substitute of the evidence to be produced by the parties. It is only meant for appreciating the evidence produced by the parties. It cannot be made the basis for deciding a case. Where the Court acts to survey the spot, it acts as a Commissioner and thus becomes a witness. It is only meant for appreciating the evidence produced by the parties. It cannot be made the basis for deciding a case. Where the Court acts to survey the spot, it acts as a Commissioner and thus becomes a witness. Scope of spot inspection after conclusion of evidence and hearing parties is limited for the purpose of appreciating the material before it and not to make it as an evidence in favour of one and against the other party. Mr. Sood on a question of law did not dispute this legal position, but added that so far present case is concerned, first appellate Court has not based its finding on spot inspection of the trial Court. 21. Further, Mr. Sood urged that even wrong, illegal and erroneous findings of fact are not to be interfered under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Only on substantial questions of law a second appeal can be examined by the High Court. Whereas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted, that so far legal proposition of law is concerned, it is not disputed, But he hastened to add that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on wholly wrong notions of law and incorrect interpretation of the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Grant of Nautor Land to Landless Persons and Other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975. As also on total misconstruction and misreading of the evidence both oral and documentary. According to him, the findings recorded by both the Courts below while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff could not at all have been arrived at in any circumstances whatsoever in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. He further pointed out that first appellate Court gravely erred after having recorded the finding on issue No. 2, and also holding that Patta of Nautor did not see the light of the day while dismissing the appeal. By referring to Clauses 7 and 10 of the Scheme of 1975 (supra), he pointed out that such findings are perverse, which need to be corrected in the present appeal. 22. By referring to Clauses 7 and 10 of the Scheme of 1975 (supra), he pointed out that such findings are perverse, which need to be corrected in the present appeal. 22. After having considered respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties, I am satisfied that once finding on issue No. 2 was reversed by the appellate Court below, and there being no other evidence to accept the adverse title of the defendant over the suit land, the appellate Court below had no option, but to have decreed the suit of the plaintiff. In this context, it may also be appropriate to observe that it is not the case of the defendant either in his pleadings in the trial Court or in the evidence examined by him during trial, that there is any discrepancy regarding the identification of the land allotted by way of Nautor with the suit land. Rather, in his written statement defendant has clearly reiterated time and again that he is in adverse possession of the suit land, which he has failed to establish. At the same time by having accepted the finding of the first appellate Court on issue No. 2, he is precluded for contesting the claim of the plaintiff qua suit land in this appeal. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion under substantial questions No. 1 and 2 it is held that defendant has failed to prove his adverse possession over the suit land, and at the same time keeping in view the ratio of the Supreme Court decision, in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and others (supra), a decree needs to be passed against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff, who is rightful owner on the basis of grant of Nautor. Under substantial question No. 3 it is held that there was no need to have placed Patta Nautor granted in favour of the plaintiff qua the suit land in view of provisions of Clauses 7 and 10 of the Scheme of 1975 (supra) on record. 24. No other submission was made on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. 24. No other submission was made on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. As a result of it, suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed for possession by way of demolition of any structure standing over land comprised in khasra No. 920, Khata/Khatauni No. 192 min/300 min, measuring 3 Biswas, as per Jamabandi for the year 1982-83, situate in Phati Bari, Kothi Baragarh, Tehsil and District Kullu. Defendant will also pay cost of the suit to the plaintiff throughout. Appeal allowed.