JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. A challenge has been laid by way of this second appeal to the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur dated 26.9.1996 rendered in appeal No. 280 of 1986. 2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this second appeal as gathered from the judgments of the trial court and appellate court are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake) filed a suit alleging that she was in adverse possession of the suit land along with proforma defendants No. 6 and 7. According to her Smt. Jiwni had gifted away land measuring 21.12 bighas to her father by a registered gift deed dated 25.2.1958 and since then her father is said to be in occupation of the suit land along with the land gifted to him. The suit was resisted by the contesting defendants. The trial court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff and proforma defendants are owners of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff and proforma defendants are in possession of the land of Jiwni, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata? OPD 4. Whether the suit not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 6. Whether the suit is collusive? OPD 7. Whether the suit is nor properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 8. Relief. 3. The findings recorded by the learned trail court on the aforesaid issues are as under: Issue No.1. No Issue No.2 No. Issue No.3 Yes. Issue No.4. Yes. Issue No.5 No. Issue No.6 No. Issue No.7 No. Issue No.7 The suit is dismissed as per operative portion of the judgment. 4. The learned Sub Judge vide judgment dated 31.3.1986 dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs filed an appeal in the court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur framed the following points for determination: 1 Whether the findings of the learned trial court are sustainable in the eye of law? 2 Final order. 5. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur had recorded the following finings on the aforesaid points: 1 Yes. 2 Appeal is dismissed as per the operative part of the judgment. 6. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on 26.9.1996. 2 Final order. 5. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur had recorded the following finings on the aforesaid points: 1 Yes. 2 Appeal is dismissed as per the operative part of the judgment. 6. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on 26.9.1996. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. What in the facts and circumstances of the case the findings arrived at vide impugned judgment and decree are based on surmises, misreading the evidence and relying the evidence inadmissible in law? 7. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant had strenuously argued that the judgments passed by both the courts below are not sustainable. 8. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents had supported the judgments passed by the learned trial as well as appellate courts. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 10. The names of respondents No.5 to 14 were deleted vide order dated 17.11.2000. 11. Before the oral evidence is taken into consideration, it will be appropriate to consider the documentary evidence placed on record by way of revenue entries. Ex.P-A is the copy of Misal Haquiat pertaining to the year 1966-67. As per Ex.P-A, Jiwani is recorded in possession as non-occupancy tenant under Diwana, Banshi and Dhanu, defendants on the suit land. In Ex.P-B, Jamabandi for the years 1977-78 Pohlo and Diwana are entered as owners in cultivating possession. EX.P-C is the copy of Misal Haquiat and Ex.P-D is the copy of the jamabandi. These two documents are not relevant since they pertain to some other suit land. In her cross-examination, the plaintiff her-self has stated that the land in question was gifted to her father by Jiwani 30 years back. The gift deed was not proved. 12. The plaintiff has appeared as PW-1 and has admitted in her crossexamination that she was married in village Tihri which is in District Hamirpur 18 years back. PW-2 has admitted in his cross-examination that he was serving in the Army for the last 21 years and his version cannot be believed that he has seen the plaintiff cultivating the suit land. PW-3 is closely related to PW-2. PW-2 has admitted in his cross-examination that he was serving in the Army for the last 21 years and his version cannot be believed that he has seen the plaintiff cultivating the suit land. PW-3 is closely related to PW-2. He does not know who are the owners of the adjoining land to the suit land. They have not stated that the plaintiff was getting the land cultivated after the death of the father through her fatherin- law. There was a prolong litigation between the contesting defendants and proforma defendants. The plaintiff has failed to prove her possession over the suit land. So the question of adverse possession does not arise. The plaintiff has failed to prove the basic ingredients of the adverse possession, namely, (a) on what date she came into possession, (b) what was the nature of her possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long her possession has continued, (e) her possession was open and undisturbed, (f) animus possidendi at the commencement of the possession, and (g) the open-ness and adverse nature of possession. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his/her favour. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and others versus Revamma and others, 2007 (6) Scale 95 has considered the entire case law on the point of adverse possession. Their Lordships have held as under: “CHARACTERIZING ADVERSE POSSESSION Adverse possession in one sense is based on the theory or presumption that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor or on the acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person in possession. It follows that sound qualities of a typical adverse possession lie in it being open, continuous and hostile. [See Downing v. Bird, 100 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1958), Arkansas Commemorative Commission v. City of Little Rock, 227 Ark. 1085, 303 S.W.2d 569 (1957); Monnot v. Murphy, 207 N.Y. 240, 100 N.E. 742 (1913); City of Rock Springs v. Sturm, 39 Wyo. 494, 273 P. 908, 97 A.L.R. 1 (1929).] Efficacy of adverse possession law in most jurisdictions depend on strong limitation statutes by operation of which right to access the court expires through effluxion of time. 1085, 303 S.W.2d 569 (1957); Monnot v. Murphy, 207 N.Y. 240, 100 N.E. 742 (1913); City of Rock Springs v. Sturm, 39 Wyo. 494, 273 P. 908, 97 A.L.R. 1 (1929).] Efficacy of adverse possession law in most jurisdictions depend on strong limitation statutes by operation of which right to access the court expires through effluxion of time. As against rights of the paper-owner, in the context of adverse possession, there evolves a set of competing rights in favour of the adverse possessor who has, for a long period of time, cared for the land, developed it, as against the owner of the property who has ignored the property. Modern statutes of limitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut off one's right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been in the adverse possession of another for a specified time, but also to vest the possessor with title. The intention of such statutes is not to punish one who neglects to assert rights, but to protect those who have maintained the possession of property for the time specified by the statute under claim of right or color of title. (See American Jurisprudence, Vol. 3, 2d, Page 81). It is important to keep in mind while studying the American notion of Adverse Possession, especially in the backdrop of Limitation Statutes, that the intention to dispossess can not be given a complete go by. Simple application of Limitation shall not be enough by itself for the success of an adverse possession claim. To understand the true nature of adverse possession, Fairweather v St Marylebone Property Co [1962] 2 WLR 1020, [1962] 2 All ER 288 can be considered where House of Lords referring to Taylor v. Twinberrow [1930] 2 K.B. 16, termed adverse possession as a negative and consequential right effected only because somebody else's positive right to access the court is barred by operation of law: "In my opinion this principle has been settled law since the date of that decision. It formed the basis of the later decision of the Divisional Count in Taylor v. Twinberrow [1930] 2 K.B. 16, in which it was most clearly explained by Scrutton, L.J. that it was a misunderstanding of the legal effect of 12 years adverse possession under the Limitation Acts to treat it as if it gave a title whereas its effect is " merely negative " and, where the possession had been against a tenant, its only operation was to bar his right to claim against the man in possession (see loc. cit. p. 23). I think that this statement needs only one qualification: a squatter does in the end get a title by his possession and the indirect operation of the Act and he can convey a fee simple. If this principle is applied, as it must be, to the Appellant's situation, it appears that the adverse possession completed in 1932 against the lessee of No. 315 did not transfer to him either the lessee's' term or his rights against or has obligations to the landlord who held the reversion. The appellant claims to be entitled to keep the landlord at bay until the expiration of the term by effluxion of time in 1992: but, if he is, it cannot be because he is the transferee or holder of the term which was granted to the lessee. He is in possession by his own right, so far as it is a right: and it is a right so far as the statutes of limitation which govern the matter prescribe both when the rights to dispossess him are to be treated as accruing and when, having accrued, they are thereafter to be treated as barred. In other words, a squatter has as much protection as but no more protection than the statutes allow: but he has not the title or estate of the owner or owners whom he has dispossessed nor has he in any relevant sense an estate "commensurate with" the estate of the dispossessed. In other words, a squatter has as much protection as but no more protection than the statutes allow: but he has not the title or estate of the owner or owners whom he has dispossessed nor has he in any relevant sense an estate "commensurate with" the estate of the dispossessed. All that this misleading phrase can mean is that, since his possession only defeats the rights of those to whom it has been adverse, there may be rights not prescribed against, such, for instance, as equitable easements, which axe no less enforceable against him in respect of the land than they would have been against the owners he has dispossessed." Also see Privy Council's decision in Chung Ping Kwan and Others v. Lam Island Development Company Limited (Hong Kong) [(1997) AC 38] in this regard. Therefore, to assess a claim of adverse possession, two-pronged enquiry is required: 1. Application of limitation provision thereby jurisprudentially "willful neglect" element on part of the owner established. Successful application in this regard distances the title of the land from the paper-owner. 2. Specific Positive intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse possessor effectively shifts the title already distanced from the paper owner, to the adverse possessor. Right thereby accrues in favour of adverse possessor as intent to dispossess is an express statement of urgency and intention in the upkeep of the property. It is interesting to see the development of adverse possession law in the backdrop of the status of Right to Property in the 21st Century. The aspect of stronger Property Rights Regime in general, coupled with efficient legal regimes furthering the Rule of Law argument, has redefined the thresholds in adverse possession law not just in India but also by the Strasbourg Court. Growth of Human Rights jurisprudence in recent times has also palpably affected the developments in this regard. The aspect of stronger Property Rights Regime in general, coupled with efficient legal regimes furthering the Rule of Law argument, has redefined the thresholds in adverse possession law not just in India but also by the Strasbourg Court. Growth of Human Rights jurisprudence in recent times has also palpably affected the developments in this regard. NEW CONSIDERATION IN ADVERSE POSSESSION LAW In that context it is relevant to refer to JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. United Kingdom [2005] 49 ERG 90, [2005] ECHR 921 wherein the European Court of Human Rights while referring to the Court of Appeal judgment ([2001]EWCA Civ 117, [2001]Ch 804) made the following reference: "Lord Justice Keene took as his starting point that limitation periods were in principle not incompatible with the Convention and that the process whereby a person would be barred from enforcing rights by the passage of time was clearly acknowledged by the Convention (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). This position obtained, in his view, even though limitation periods both limited the right of access to the courts and in some circumstances had the effect of depriving persons of property rights, whether real or personal, or of damages: there was thus nothing inherently incompatible as between the 1980 Act and Article 1 of the Protocol." This brings us to the issue of mental element in adverse possession cases-intention. 1. Positive Intention The aspect of positive intention is weakened in this case by the sale deeds dated 11.04.1934 and 5.07.1936. Intention is a mental element which is proved and disproved through positive acts. Existence of some events can go a long way to weaken the presumption of intention to dispossess which might have painstakingly grown out of long possession which otherwise would have sufficed in a standard adverse possession case.. The fact of possession is important in more than one ways: firstly, due compliance on this count attracts limitation act and it also assists the court to unearth as the intention to dispossess. At this juncture, it would be in the fitness of circumstances to discuss intention to dispossess vis-a-vis intention to possess. This distinction can be marked very distinctively in the present circumstances. Importantly, intention to possess can not be substituted for intention to dispossess which is essential to prove adverse possession. At this juncture, it would be in the fitness of circumstances to discuss intention to dispossess vis-a-vis intention to possess. This distinction can be marked very distinctively in the present circumstances. Importantly, intention to possess can not be substituted for intention to dispossess which is essential to prove adverse possession. The factum of possession in the instant case only goes on to objectively indicate intention to possess the land. As also has been noted by the High Court, if the appellant has purchased the land without the knowledge of earlier sale, then in that case the intention element is not of the variety and degree which is required for adverse possession to materialize. The High Court observed: "It is seen from the pleadings as well in evidence that the plaintiff came to know about the right of the defendants', only when disturbances were sought to be made to his possession." In similar circumstances, in the case of Thakur Kishan Singh (dead) v. Arvind Kumar [ (1994) 6 SCC 591 ] this court held: "As regards adverse possession, it was not disputed even by the trial court that the appellant entered into possession over the land in dispute under a licence from the respondent for purposes of brick-kiln. The possession thus initially being permissive, the burden was heavy on the appellant to establish that it became adverse. A possession of a co-owner or of a licencee or of an agent or a permissive possession to become adverse must be established by cogent and convincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of real owner. Mere possession for howsoever length of time does not result in converting the permissible possession into adverse possession. Apart from it, the Appellate Court has gone into detail and after considering the evidence on record found it as a fact that the possession of the appellant was not adverse." The present case is one of the few ones where even an unusually long undisturbed possession does not go on to prove the intention of the adverse possessor. Apart from it, the Appellate Court has gone into detail and after considering the evidence on record found it as a fact that the possession of the appellant was not adverse." The present case is one of the few ones where even an unusually long undisturbed possession does not go on to prove the intention of the adverse possessor. This is a rare circumstance, which Clarke LJ in Lambeth London Borough Council v Blackburn (2001) 82 P & CR 494, 504 refers to: "I would not for my part think it appropriate to strain to hold that a trespasser who had established factual possession of the property for the necessary 12 years did not have the animus possidendi identified in the cases. I express that view for two reasons. The first is that the requirement that there be a sufficient manifestation of the intention provides protection for landowners and the second is that once it is held that the trespasser has factual possession it will very often be the case that he can establish the manifested intention. Indeed it is difficult to find a case in which there has been a clear finding of factual possession in which the claim to adverse possession has failed for lack of intention." On intention, The Powell v. Macfarlane (1977) 38 P & CR (Property, Planning & Compensation Reports) 452 - 472 is quite illustrative and categorical, holding in the following terms: "If the law is to attribute possession of land to a person who can establish no paper title to possession, he must be shown to have both factual possession and the requisite intention to possess ('animus possidendi')." If his acts are open to more than one interpretation and he has not made it perfectly plain to the world at large by his actions or words that he has intended to exclude the owner as best he can, the courts will treat him as not having had the requisite animus possidendi and consequently as not having dispossessed the owner. In my judgment it is consistent with principle as well as authority that a person who originally entered another's land as a trespasser, but later seeks to show that he has dispossessed the owner, should be required to adduce compelling evidence that he had the requisite animus possidendi in any case where his use of the land was equivocal, in the sense that it did not necessarily, by itself, betoken an intention on his part to claim the land as his own and exclude the true owner. What is really meant, in my judgment, is that the animus possidendi involves the intention, in one's own name and on one's own behalf, to exclude the world at large, including the owner with the paper title if he be not himself the possessor, so far as is reasonably practicable and so far as the processes of the law will allow." Thus, there must be intention to dispossess. And it needs to be open and hostile enough to bring the same to the knowledge and plaintiff has an opportunity to object. After all adverse possession right is not a substantive right but a result of the waiving (willful) or omission (negligent or otherwise) of right to defend or care for the integrity of property on the part of the paper owner of the land. Adverse possession statutes, like other statutes of limitation, rest on a public policy that do not promote litigation and aims at the repose of conditions that the parties have suffered to remain unquestioned long enough to indicate their acquiescence. While dealing with the aspect of intention in the Adverse possession law, it is important to understand its nuances from varied angles. Intention implies knowledge on the part of adverse possessor. The case of Saroop Singh v. Banto and Others [ (2005) 8 SCC 330 ] in that context held: "29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendants possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak)30. Animus possidendi is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless the person possessing the land has a requisite animus the period for prescription does not commence. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak)30. Animus possidendi is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless the person possessing the land has a requisite animus the period for prescription does not commence. As in the instant case, the appellant categorically states that his possession is not adverse as that of true owner, the logical corollary is that he did not have the requisite animus. (See Mohd. Mohd. Ali v. Jagadish Kalita, SCC para 21.)" A peaceful, open and continuous possession as engraved in the maxim nec vi, nec clam, nec precario has been noticed by this Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and Others [ (2004) 10 SCC 779 ] in the following terms: "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/her favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession” It is important to appreciate the question of intention as it would have appeared to the paper-owner. The issue is that intention of the adverse user gets communicated to the paper owner of the property. This is where the law gives importance to hostility and openness as pertinent qualities of manner of possession. It follows that the possession of the adverse possessor must be hostile enough to give rise to a reasonable notice and opportunity to the paper owner. This is where the law gives importance to hostility and openness as pertinent qualities of manner of possession. It follows that the possession of the adverse possessor must be hostile enough to give rise to a reasonable notice and opportunity to the paper owner. In Narne Rama Murthy v. Ravula Somasundaram and Others [ (2005) 6 SCC 614 ], this Court held: "However, in cases where the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the suit does not appear to be barred by limitation on the face of it, then the facts necessary to prove limitation must be pleaded, an issue raised and then proved. In this case the question of limitation is intricately linked with the question whether the agreement to sell was entered into on behalf of all and whether possession was on behalf of all. It is also linked with the plea of adverse possession. Once on facts it has been found that the purchase was on behalf of all and that the possession was on behalf of all, then, in the absence of any open, hostile and overt act, there can be no adverse possession and the suit would also not be barred by limitation. The only hostile act which could be shown was the advertisement issued in 1989. The suit filed almost immediately thereafter." The test is, as has been held in the case of R. v. Oxfordshire County Council and Others, Ex Parte Sunningwell Parish Council [1999] 3 ALL ER 385; [1999] 3 WLR 160: Bright v. Walker (1834) 1 Cr. M. & R. 211, 219, "openly and in the manner that a person rightfully entitled would have used it. . ." The presumption arises, as Fry J. said of prescription generally in Dalton v. Angus (1881) 6 App.Cas. 740, 773, from acquiescence. The case concerned interpretation of section 22(1) of the Commons Registration Act 1965. Section 22(1) defined "town or village green" as including "… land …. on which the inhabitants of any locality have indulged in [lawful] sports and pastimes as of right for not less than 20 years." It was observed that the inhabitants' use of the land for sports and pastimes did not constitute the use "as of right". The belief that they had the right to do so was found to be lacking. on which the inhabitants of any locality have indulged in [lawful] sports and pastimes as of right for not less than 20 years." It was observed that the inhabitants' use of the land for sports and pastimes did not constitute the use "as of right". The belief that they had the right to do so was found to be lacking. The House held that they did not have to have a personal belief in their right to use the land. The court observed: "the words 'as of right' import the absence of any of the three characteristics of compulsion, secrecy or licence 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', phraseology borrowed from the law of easements." Later in the case of Beresford, R (on the application of) v. City of Sunderland [2003] 3 WLR 1306, [2004] 1 All ER 160 same test was referred to. Thus the test of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario i.e., "not by force, nor stealth, nor the license of the owner" has been an established notion in law relating to the whole range of similarly situated concepts such as easement, prescription, public dedication, limitation and adverse possession. In Karnataka Wakf Board (Supra), the law was stated, thus: "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 won't 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 'nec vi, nec clam, nec 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. 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 : S M 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." 2. Inquiry into the particulars of Adverse Possession. Inquiry into the starting point of adverse possession i.e. dates as to when the paper owner got dispossessed is an important aspect to be considered. In the instant case the starting point of adverse possession and Other facts such as the manner in which the possession operationalized, nature of possession: whether open, continuous, uninterrupted or hostile possession - have not been disclosed. An observation has been made in this regard in S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina [ AIR 1964 SC 1254 ]: "Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found. An observation has been made in this regard in S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina [ AIR 1964 SC 1254 ]: "Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found. There is no evidence here when possession became adverse, if it at all did, and a mere suggestion in the relief clause that there was an uninterrupted possession for "several 12 years" or that the plaintiff had acquired "an absolute title" was not enough to raise such a plea. Long possession is not necessarily adverse possession and the prayer clause is not a substitute for a plea." Also mention as to the real owner of the property must be specifically made in an adverse possession claim. In Karnataka Wakf Board (Supra), it is stated: "Plaintiff, filing a title suit should be very clear about the origin of title over the property. He must specifically plead it. 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 someone 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 his title by prescription nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. Since the appellant's 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."" 3. Since the appellant's 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."" 3. New Paradigm to Limitation Act The law in this behalf has undergone a change. In terms of Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show within 12 years from the date of institution of the suit that he had title and possession of the land, whereas in terms of Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the legal position has underwent complete change insofar as the onus is concerned: once a party proves its title, the onus of proof would be on the other party to prove claims of title by adverse possession. The ingredients of adverse possession have succinctly been stated by this Court in S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina [ AIR 1964 SC 1254 ] in the following terms: "…Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found…." [See also M. Durai v. Madhu and Others 2007 (2) SCALE 309 ] The aforementioned principle has been reiterated by this Court in Saroop Singh v. Banto and Others [ (2005) 8 SCC 330 ] stating: "29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendants possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak) 30. Animus possidendi is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless the person possessing the land has a requisite animus the period for prescription does not commence. As in the instant case, the appellant categorically states that his possession is not adverse as that of true owner, the logical corollary is that he did not have the requisite animus. (See Mohd. Mohd. Unless the person possessing the land has a requisite animus the period for prescription does not commence. As in the instant case, the appellant categorically states that his possession is not adverse as that of true owner, the logical corollary is that he did not have the requisite animus. (See Mohd. Mohd. Ali v. Jagadish Kalita, SCC para 21.)" In Mohammadbhai Kasambhai Sheikh and Others v. Abdulla Kasambhai Sheikh [ (2004) 13 SCC 385 ], this Court held: "…..But as has been held in Mahomedally Tyebally v. Safiabai the heirs of Mohammedans (which the parties before us are) succeed to the estate in specific shares as tenants-in-common and a suit by an heir for his/her share was governed, as regards immovable property, by Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908 has been materially re-enacted as Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and provides that the suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title must be filed within a period of 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Therefore, unless the defendant raises the defence of adverse possession to a claim for a share by an heir to ancestral property, he cannot also raise an issue relating to the limitation of the plaintiffs claim" The question has been considered at some length recently in T. Anjanappa and Others v. Somalingappa and Another [ (2006) 7 SCC 570 ], wherein it was opined : "The High Court has erred in holding that even if the defendants claim adverse possession, they do not have to prove who is the true owner and even if they had believed that the Government was the true owner and not the plaintiffs, the same was inconsequential. Obviously, the requirements of proving adverse possession have not been established. If the defendants are not sure who is the true owner the question of their being in hostile possession and the question of denying title of the true owner do not arise. Above being the position the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable….." [See also Des Raj and Ors. v. Bhagat Ram (Dead) By LRs. And Ors., 2007 (3) SCALE 371 ; Govindammal v. R. Perumal Chettiar & Ors., JT 2006 (10) SC 121 : (2006) 11 SCC 600 ] 14. Above being the position the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable….." [See also Des Raj and Ors. v. Bhagat Ram (Dead) By LRs. And Ors., 2007 (3) SCALE 371 ; Govindammal v. R. Perumal Chettiar & Ors., JT 2006 (10) SC 121 : (2006) 11 SCC 600 ] 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has again explained the element of adverse possession in Annakili versus A Vedanayagam and others 2007 (12) Scale 523 . Their Lordships have held as under: Claim by adverse possession has two elements: (1) the possession of the defendant should become adverse to the plaintiff; and (2) the defendant must continue to remain in possession for a period of 12 years thereafter. Animus possidendi as is well known is a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. It is now a well settled principle of law that mere possession of the land would not ripen into possessory title for the said purpose. Possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. For the said purpose, not only animus possidendi must be shown to exist, but the same must be shown to exist at the commencement of the possession. He must continue in said capacity for the period prescribed under the Limitation Act. Mere long possession, it is trite, for a period of more than 12 years without anything more do not ripen into a title. 15. Their Lordships in Dharmarajan and others versus Valliammal and others 2007 (14) Scale 79 have laid down the following ingredients in order to substantiate the plea of adverse possession. “A glance at the High Court judgment suggests that the High Court has gone into a dangerous area of appreciation of evidence, that too on the basis of non existent substantial questions of law. The five questions of law framed by the High Court were as follows: "(1) Whether the admitted long possession of the original owner Karupayee and that of Doraiswamy who claims title through her cannot be tacked together in law for the purpose of adverse possession? (2) Whether the burden is not on the plaintiff who is out of possession to prove that he has got valid title in the suit properties as laid down by this Court? (3) Whether non-examination of the vendors of the plaintiff is not fatal to the case of the plaintiff? (2) Whether the burden is not on the plaintiff who is out of possession to prove that he has got valid title in the suit properties as laid down by this Court? (3) Whether non-examination of the vendors of the plaintiff is not fatal to the case of the plaintiff? (4) Whether Ex.A-8 is not admissible in evidence? And (5) Whether lower appellate court is justified in decreeing the suit for declaration, having found that the defendants are in possession and having refused to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff?" In our opinion none of these questions could be said to be either question of law or a substantial question of law arising out of the pleadings of the parties. The first referred question of law could not and did not arise for the simple reason that the plea of adverse possession has been rightly found against the plaintiff. Karupayee Ammal's possession, even if presumed to be in a valid possession in law, could not be said to be adverse possession as throughout it was the case of the appellant Dharmarajan that it was a permissive possession and that she was permitted to stay on the land belonging to the members of the Iyer family. Secondly it has nowhere come as to against whom was her possession adverse. Was it adverse against the Government or against the Iyer family? In order to substantiate the plea of adverse possession, the possession has to be open and adverse to the owner of the property in question. The evidence did not show this openness and adverse nature because it is not even certain as to against whom the adverse possession was pleaded on the part of Karupayee Ammal. Further even the legal relationship of Doraiswamy and Karupayee Ammal is not pleaded or proved. All that is pleaded is that after Karupayee Ammal's demise Doraiswamy as her foster son continued in the thatched shed allegedly constructed by Karupayee Ammal. There was no question of the tacking of possession as there is ample evidence on record to suggest that Doraiswamy also was in the service of Iyer family and that he was permitted to stay after Karupayee Ammal. Further his legal heirship was also not decisively proved. We do not, therefore, see as to how the first substantial question of law came to be framed. Further his legal heirship was also not decisively proved. We do not, therefore, see as to how the first substantial question of law came to be framed. This is apart from the fact that ultimately High Court has not granted the relief to the respondents on the basis of the finding of this question. On the other hand the High Court has gone into entirely different consideration based on re-appreciation of evidence. The second and third questions are not the questions of law at all. They are regarding appreciation of evidence. The fourth question is regarding the admissibility of Exhibit A-8. In our opinion there is no question of admissibility as the High Court has found that Exhibit A-8 was not admissible in evidence since the Tehsildar who had issued that certificate was not examined. Therefore, there will be no question of admissibility since the document itself was not proved. Again the finding of the High Court goes against the respondent herein. Even the fifth question was a clear cut question of fact and was, therefore, impermissible in the Second Appeal.” 16. In view of the above discussion there is no merit in the second appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.