Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court whereby the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs have become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession was dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration, inter-alia, on the ground that they arc in possession mentioned in para I of the plaint for the last more than 20 years which is continuous, hostile and notorious, and thus, they have become owner by way of adverse possession. On the other hand, it was the stand of the defendants that the land was declared surplus by Collector Agrarian and that a suit was filed by Ram Rikh against the plaintiffs which was withdrawn with permission to file fresh suit on the same cause of action and that the possession of the plaintiff is not adverse. 3. Defendant Nos. 3 to 10 are allottees, who have alleged that they have been allotted surplus land by Collector, Agrarian while utilizing the surplus area and that surplus land vests in the State of Haryana by virtue of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 4. The learned trial Court decreed the suit primarily for the reason that declaration of surplus land does not appear to be in conformity with the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. In fact, the said finding was returned on the basis of finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge while remanding the matter to the trial Court after deciding issue No. 4 to the effect that whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside. It was found that the land was declared surplus area vide order dated 25.9.1965. Ex.P-1 and that the land vests with the State Government in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act. The argument that the order passed by the Collector declaring land surplus is illegal, null and void and such order has been passed without any notice to the plaintiff, was (bund to be without any merit as order declaring land surplus was passed in the presence of Ram Rikh, the original land owner. Still aggrieved, the plaintiff is in second appeal. 5. Still aggrieved, the plaintiff is in second appeal. 5. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiffs were recorded as persons in adverse possession in the jamabandi, Ex.P-6, for the year 1955-56 and, thus, they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession prior to vesting of suit land with State Government with effect from 24.1.1971 in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act. 6. However, the said argument is not tenable in law. Vide order dated 25.9.1965, Ex. D1, the land was declared surplus by Collector (Agararian). In view of the statutory provisions as contained in Section 12(3) of the Act the land vests with the State Government, Before vesting of the land, there was no declaration in favour of the appellants that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. As a matter of fact, the possession of the plaintiff was admittedly to be adverse by the defendants only in the previous suit filed on 18.9.1963 vide plaint Ex.P-12 wherein it has been mentioned that the plaintiffs have taken forcible possession in Khariff 1961. Apart from the entry in the jamabandi Ex.P-6, there is no evidence in record to hold that the appellants were in possession in the year 1955-56. As a matter of fact, the appellants have not set up the date from which they entered into possession which can be said to be adverse to the knowledge of true owner. It was only pleaded that they are in possession for the last more than 20 years. 7. It is well settled that 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 the necessary facts to establish his adverse possession. Reference may be made to judgment reported as Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma (Smt) and Ors., (1996)8 Supreme Court Cases 128. 8. It is equally well settled that the person pleading adverse possession has to plead and prove at what point of time he started prescribing his hostile title. Reference may be made to the judgment reported as V. Rajeshwari (Smt.) v. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004)1 Supreme Court Cases 551. 8. It is equally well settled that the person pleading adverse possession has to plead and prove at what point of time he started prescribing his hostile title. Reference may be made to the judgment reported as V. Rajeshwari (Smt.) v. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004)1 Supreme Court Cases 551. To establish the claim of adverse possession, three elements are required to be proved hostile intention, long and uninterrupted possession; and an exercise of right of exclusive ownership openly and to the knowledge of the owner. The starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when right of ownership arises from the plaintiff but it commences from the date when the defendants possession became adverse, Therefore, mere possession would not be sufficient to return a finding that the plaintiffs have become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Such finding is based upon proper appreciation of evidence which does not call for any interference in second appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed in limine.