JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J.—This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh (defendant) against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff was partly accepted, judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 29.6.1991 were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. 2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that on 16.10.1987 plaintiff-respondent Kalmu had field a suit for declaration against the defendant-appellant State of Himachal Pradesh, with the allegations that the suit land measuring 102.18 bighas was coming in possession of the plaintiff and prior to him, his predecessors-in-interest for the last more than 80 years and now the plaintiff had become the owner of the same by adverse possession and that the revenue entries in favour of the defendant-State of Himachal Pradesh were wrong. It was alleged that a piece of land out of the suit land was cultivated and the plaintiff had planted fruit bearing trees thereon for the last 35 years. It was further alleged that in the year 1982-83 the defendant-State had initiated proceedings under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act against the plaintiff before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, who passed ejectment order dated 31.3.1984 against the plaintiff and the appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Paonta Sahib and further appeal filed by the plaintiff before the Divisional Commissioner met the same fate. It was alleged that the revenue Courts had not properly appreciated the case of the plaintiff. It was accordingly prayed that the suit of the plaintiff for declaration be decreed. 3. The defendant-State of Himachal Pradesh filed written statement and denied that the plaintiff was in possession over the suit land. On the other hand, it was pleaded that it was the defendant who was in possession thereof and that revenue entries in favour of the defendant were correct. It was alleged that in fact Government land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas was encroached by the plaintiff and ejectment order was passed against him under the provisions of Section 163 of the H.R Land Revenue Act. It was denied that the plaintiff had planted fruit bearing trees. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed various issues. It was denied that the plaintiff had planted fruit bearing trees. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed various issues. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. However, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was partly accepted, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge, holding that the plaintiff had become owner of the land measuring 19 bighas 2 bis was, out of the total land measuring 102 bighas 18 biswas, by way of adverse possession and that the plaintiff was entitled to correction of the entries in the revenue record. Aggrieved against the same, defendant State of H.R filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court. The appeal was admitted to a regular hearing on the following substantial question of law : "Whether the plaintiff was in peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession of the suit land for a period of more than 30 years?" 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant State of H.R submitted before me that the lower appellate Court had erred in law in holding that the plaintiff-respondent had acquired ownership over the land measuring 19 bighas 2 biswas, out of the total land measuring 102-18 bighas, by way of adverse possession. It was submitted that the learned Additional District Judge had misread the oral as well as the documentary evidence produced in the Court, while coming to this conclusion. It was submitted that the revenue record through out was in favour of the defendant appellant State of H.R and there was nothing on the record to show that the plaintiff respondent had acquired ownership over any portion of the suit property by way of adverse possession. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondent submitted before me that the learned Additional District Judge had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff in respect of the land measuring 19 bighas 2 biswas. 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondent submitted before me that the learned Additional District Judge had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff in respect of the land measuring 19 bighas 2 biswas. 7. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, there is considerable force in the submissions made before me by the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant State of H.R While partly accepting the appeal and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in respect of land measuring 19 bighas 2 biswas the learned Additional District Judge had referred to the testimony of DW-1 Roshan Lai, Field Kanungo and his report Ex.D-1 along with Tatima Ex-D-2 and it was held that from the testimony of this witness and from his report Ex.D-1 it was established that the plaintiff was in possession of 19 bighas 2 biswas of land. However, in my opinion, this finding given by the learned Additional District Judge by placing reliance on the testimony of DW-1 Roshan Lai, Field Kanungo and his report Ex.D-1, could not have been given if the learned Additional District Judge had considered the entire evidence including the testimony of DW-1 Roshan Lai, Field Kanungo and his report Ex.D-1. Infact, the findings given by the learned Additional District Judge are the result of misreading of evidence and are perverse and are liable to be reversed. 8. As referred to above, the case of the plaintiff was that he was in possession of the land measuring 102-18 bighas and prior to him his predecessors-in-interest were in possession thereof for the last more than 80 years. These allegations were specifically denied by the defendant State in the written statement. When Kalmu plaintiff appeared in the witness box as PW-1 he deposed that the suit land which was measuring 80-90 bighas was in the possession of his father and now it was in his possession and their possession was 40 years old. He stated that a part of the land was cultivable and on a part of the land a house and a khalyan etc. had been constructed and trees had been planted for the last about 35 years. He said that the land had wrongly been entered in the revenue record in favour of the Forest Department of the State Government. He stated that a part of the land was cultivable and on a part of the land a house and a khalyan etc. had been constructed and trees had been planted for the last about 35 years. He said that the land had wrongly been entered in the revenue record in favour of the Forest Department of the State Government. He stated that this land was not given to them by any one, but his father had got the same himself. He stated that 6-7 years back the State Government had initiated proceedings under Section 163 of the H.R Land Revenue Act for his ejectment there from and that orders of ejectment were passed against him, which were upheld in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Collector and the Commissioner. He produced in evidence copies of jamabandis for the years 1980-81 and 1985-86, Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and Khasra Girdwari E.x.P-3 besides Tatima mark A. During cross-examination, he admitted that Patwari comes to the spot for making entries in the Khasra Girdwari as whosoever is found in possession is entered in the Girdwari to be in possession of the land. He stated that he had thought that the Patwari must have entered his possession over the suit land. He denied the suggestion that he had tried to take possession of the suit land about 6-7 years back or that he had constructed the Khalian in 1980-81 or that he took possession over a portion of the suit property in 1982-83. He stated that when ejectment proceedings were initiated against him, he had told the authorities that he was the owner in possession thereof. He denied the suggestion that the revenue entries in favour of the State Government were rightly made or that he had filed the present suit to grab the Government land or that he and his ancestors were not in possession thereof. In support 6i his case, the plaintiff had examined PW-2 Sukhia and PW-3 Shobha Ram. Both these witnesses made similar statements as was made by the plaintiff. During cross-examination both the witnesses also admitted that Patwari comes to the spot for making entries in the Khasra Girdwari and that he enters the name of the person in the Khasra Girdwari whosoever is found in possession thereof. Both these witnesses made similar statements as was made by the plaintiff. During cross-examination both the witnesses also admitted that Patwari comes to the spot for making entries in the Khasra Girdwari and that he enters the name of the person in the Khasra Girdwari whosoever is found in possession thereof. This is the entire oral evidence led by the plaintiff in support of his case for proving that he had acquired ownership over the suit land by way of adverse possession. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, as referred to above, Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 are the copies of the jamabandi for the years 1980-81 and 1985-86 vide which the suit land measuring 102-18 bighas had been shown to be in the ownership of the State of Himachal Pradesh and in possession of the Forest Department. Ex.P-3 is the copy of Khasra Girdwari for 1986-87 to the same effect. So far as Tatima mark A is concerned, neither the same is proved on the record nor the same would prove the adverse possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 9. In view of the aforesaid evidence led by the plaintiff, in my opinion, it could not be held that the plaintiff had acquired ownership over the suit land or any part thereof, by way of adverse possession. So far as the testimony of DW-1 Roshan Lal, Field Kanungo and his report Ex.D-1 coupled with Tatima Ex.D-2 are concerned, in my opinion, on the basis of the said statement of DW-1 Roshan Lal, Field Kanungo, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had acquired ownership qua the land measuring 19-2 bighas, out of the total land measuring 102-18 bighas, by way of adverse possession. DW-1 Roshan Lal Field Kanungo, deposed that he was posted as Field Kanungo in the relevant circle in January, 1991. He stated that the State of Himachal Pradesh was the owner of the suit land and Forest Department was in possession thereof. He stated that 15 bighas 13 biswas, out of the disputed land, the plaintiff had been in unauthorised possession, as per the spot. He stated that ejectment proceedings were imitated against him in this regard and orders for his ejectment were passed by the revenue authorities and that warrant of possession had been issued against him on 31.1.1986. He stated that 15 bighas 13 biswas, out of the disputed land, the plaintiff had been in unauthorised possession, as per the spot. He stated that ejectment proceedings were imitated against him in this regard and orders for his ejectment were passed by the revenue authorities and that warrant of possession had been issued against him on 31.1.1986. He stated that as per the revenue record, from the very beginning there was no entry ever in favour of the plaintiff. He stated that he had visited the spot on 1.5.1991 and at that time he had associated Ramesh Kumar, grand-son of the plaintiff, with him and had found the plaintiff in possession of 15 bighas 13 biswas of land and thereupon the ejectment proceedings were initiated against him. He stated that the plaintiff had further encroached some more land and in all he was in unauthorized possession of the land measuring 19 bighas 2 biswas and stated he had submitted his report "Ex.D-1. He also proved Tatima Ex.D-2, copy of Jamabandi for the years 1985-86 Ex.D-3, copy of Khasra Girdwari for the period 1986 to 1991 Ex.D-4 and Average value for 5 years Ex.D-5. He stated that except the land measuring 19 bighas 2 biswas the Forest Department of the H.P. Government was in possession of the remaining land. During cross-examination/he stated that in the report Ex.D-1 he himself had made the cutting with red ink and had also put his initials thereon. He stated that initially he had mentioned 20-25 years (which had later on been corrected as 10-12 years). He denied the suggestion that being a Government servant he had made the statement in favour of the State Government. 10. Ex.D-1 is the report submitted by Roshan Lal Field Kanungo after spot inspection. As per the said report he had visited the spot on 1.5.1991 along with Patwari Halqa in connection with the case Kalmu v. State ofH.P., pending in the Court of Tehsildar and that he had inspected the spot in the presence of Romesh son of Hira (grand-son of Kalmu). It was reported that the entire land was in the ownership of the State of Himachal Pradesh and was recorded in the possession of the Forest Department, since the settlement proceedings. It was further reported that at the spot land measuring 19 bighas 2 biswas was in unauthroised possession of Kalmu. It was reported that the entire land was in the ownership of the State of Himachal Pradesh and was recorded in the possession of the Forest Department, since the settlement proceedings. It was further reported that at the spot land measuring 19 bighas 2 biswas was in unauthroised possession of Kalmu. It was also reported that part of the land was under cultivation and part of it was lying vacant and that on the spot one Khalyan and one house had also been constructed and these were about 10-12 years old (initially the words 20-25 years had been mentioned which had been corrected as 10-12 years). It was also reported that proceedings for ejectment with regard to his unauthorized possession had been initiated against Kalmu and those were still pending. 11. From a perusal of the testimony of DW-1 Roshan Lal Field Kanungo and his report Ex.D-1, referred to above, in my opinion, it cannot be said that Kalmu plaintiff was in possession of the suit property since the time of his forefathers or that he had acquired ownership over the same by way of adverse possession. Even if from the report Ex.D-1 it is taken that Roshan Lal, Field Kanungo had reported that Kalmu was in possession of a part of the suit property for the last 20-25 years, even then the same would be of no relevance since admittedly Roshan Lal, Field Kanungo was posted in that area only in January, 1991 and did not have any special means of knowledge to say as to since when Kalmu plaintiff was in unauthorized possession of the suit land. The opinion given by Roshan Lal, Field Kanungo, about the duration of the possession of Kalmu plaintiff and/or the age of the construction thereon, in my opinion, could not be made basis for holding that Kalmu was in possession of the suit property for the last more than 20-25 years and/or that he acquired ownership thereof by way of adverse possession. In the present case, as referred to above, Roshan Lal, Field Kanungo, had categorically stated that he himself had made the correction by cutting the words 20,25 years and substituting the same by 10, 12 years. In the present case, as referred to above, Roshan Lal, Field Kanungo, had categorically stated that he himself had made the correction by cutting the words 20,25 years and substituting the same by 10, 12 years. In my opinion, the plaintiff cannot take any benefit from the aforesaid report Ex.D-1 given by Roshan Lal, Field Kanungo, especially when while appearing in the witness box as DW-1 he had categorically stated during cross-examination that the said correction was made and initiated by him. This is especially so when the revenue entries throughout are against the plaintiff-respondent. 12. From the aforesaid evidence led by the defendant, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had acquired ownership over the land measuring 19 bighas 2 biswas by way of adverse possession. This is especially so when the evidence led by the plaintiff was not sufficient to hold that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property for the last more than 30 years and/or had acquired ownership thereon by way of adverse possession. I am further of the opinion that the learned Additional District Judge, while reversing the finding of the trial Court in this regard and holding that the plaintiff had acquired ownership over the land measuring 19 bighas 2 bis was by way of adverse possession, had not only misread the evidence of DW-1 Roshan Lal, Field Kanungo and his report Ex.D-1, but had given a perverse finding to that effect, especially when there was no evidence on the record to prove ownership of the plaintiff by way of adverse possession. As referred to above all the revenue entries from the very beginning are against the plaintiff and from the oral testimony of Kalmu plaintiff and his two witnesses without any other corroborative piece of evidence, it could not be said that the plaintiff had acquired ownership over the land measuring 19 bighas 2 biswas by way of adverse possession. 13. As referred to above all the revenue entries from the very beginning are against the plaintiff and from the oral testimony of Kalmu plaintiff and his two witnesses without any other corroborative piece of evidence, it could not be said that the plaintiff had acquired ownership over the land measuring 19 bighas 2 biswas by way of adverse possession. 13. In view of the detailed discussion above, I decide the aforementioned substantial question of law, in favour of the defendant-appellant and against the plaintiff respondent and hold that on the basis of the evidence available on the record,, plain tiff respondent Kalmu had failed to prove that he was in peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession over the suit land for more than 30 years and/or that he had acquired ownership over the suit land by way of adverse possession. I also hold that the learned Additional District Judge had not only misread the testimony of DW-1 Roshan Lal, Field Kanungo and his report Ex.D-1, but had also given a perverse finding without any material on the record, while holding that the plaintiff had become owner of the land measuring 19 bighas 2 biswas by way of adverse possession. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed in toto with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. -