JUDGMENT K.C. Puri, J.:- This common judgment will govern the disposal of Regular Second Appeal No.2332 of 1999 titled Kulwant Singh Versus Khariti Lal and Regular Second Appeal No.1866 or 1999 titled, Kulwant Singh Versus Gian Singh and others, as both these appeals have arisen out of same judgment and decree passed by the then Additional District Judge, Ambala. However, the necessary facts have been extracted from Regular Second Appeal No.2332 of 1999. 2. Kulwant Singh plaintiff filed a civil suit against Gian Singh and others, defendants for a declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 20.10.1987 registered on 23.10.1987 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 regarding land measuring 13 Kanals 8 Marlas bearing Khewat/Khatauni No.33 Min/53, Khasra Nos.36/119/2. (5-8), 20(8-0) situated in village Kaunkpur was illegal, null and void and not binding on his rights as owner with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over that land forcibly except otherwise in due course of law. 3. The plaintiff alleged that he and defendant No.1 were brothers. About 30/35 years back, an oral family settlement had taken place between them. In that exchange, the suit land had fallen to his share and since then he was in cultivating possession of the same as owner. But because of certain legal reasons, mutation could not be sanctioned in his favour. Therefore, defendant No.1 was still recorded as owner of the suit land. Taking undue advantage of that fact, he has sold that land to defendant Nos.2 to 4. The sale was illegal, null and void and not binding on his rights as owner. In case, exchange was not proved, he had become the owner of the suit land by adverse possession, because he was in cultivating possession of the suit land for the last more than 12 years without any hindrance. 4. Defendant No.1 contested the claim of the plaintiff and admitted in the written statement that he and the plaintiff had exchanged some land but alleged that the suit land was never exchanged. He was the exclusive owner of the same and he had sold the same to defendant Nos.2 to 4 and now defendant Nos.2 to 4 were in possession of the suit land as owners. 5. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 also contested the suit on similar lines. He was the exclusive owner of the same and he had sold the same to defendant Nos.2 to 4 and now defendant Nos.2 to 4 were in possession of the suit land as owners. 5. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 also contested the suit on similar lines. They alleged that defendant No.1 was the exclusive owner of the suit land and now they have become owners of the same as the suit land had been purchased by them from defendant No.1. They also denied the possession of the plaintiff over any part of the suit land. 6. From the pleadings of parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:­ 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land having become by adverse owner possession? OPP. 2. Whether the suit property was exchanged in family settlement. If so, to what effect?OPP. 3.Whether the sales in favour defendants No.2 to 4 made by defendant No.1 are illegal and not binding on the plaintiff?OPP. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present from?OPD. 5. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs?OPD. 6.Relief. 7. From the amended pleadings of the parties, the following additional issue was framed: 5-A.Whether the defendants No.2 to 4 are bonafide purchasers for value?OPD. The learned trial Court decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and issue No.2 against the plaintiff. Issue No.3 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue Nos.4 and 5 were decided against the defendants. Issue No.5-A was decided in favour of the plaintiff. As a result of said findings, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree 13.8.1997. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the two sets of defendants filed two separate appeals which were accepted by the then learned Additional District Judge, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 23.3.1999 and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 9. Feeling dissatisfied, Kulwant Singh filed two separate Regular Second Appeals, in this Court. 10. I have heard arguments addressed by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 11. Mr. Puneet Jindal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the following substantial questions of law have arisen in both the appeals:­ “1. 9. Feeling dissatisfied, Kulwant Singh filed two separate Regular Second Appeals, in this Court. 10. I have heard arguments addressed by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 11. Mr. Puneet Jindal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the following substantial questions of law have arisen in both the appeals:­ “1. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court has mis-read and mis-interpreted the pleadings of the parties and failed to give effect to admission of defendant No.1 with regard to exchange of land? 2. Whether the over-whelming revenue record as well as other material, establishes on record the factum of exchange between plaintiff and defendant No.1 followed by delivery of possession and entry to that effect in the jamabandies since the year 1967?. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant had become owner by way of adverse possession, having been in possession since year 1961 i.e. 26 years before filing of suit? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances, the learned lower Appellate Court has mis-read and mis-applied the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India? 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the first Appellate Court has mis-read and mis-interpreted the evidence on the file. Very well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court has been set aside on flimsy grounds. The first Appellate Court has mis­interpreted and mis-read the evidence on the file. It is submitted that Jamabandi for the year 1966-67, Exhibit P-1, Jamabandi for the year 1976-77, Exhibit P-2, Jamabandi for the year 1981-82, Exhibit P-3, Jamabandi for the year 1986-87, Exhibit P-4 and Khasra Girdawaries, Exhibits P-5, P-6, P-7, P-8 and P-9 and other revenue record placed on the file clearly show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property for the last more than 35 years. The revenue record also depict the fact that there was exchange between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 who happened to be brothers, being the sons of Bir Singh. The exchange has been impliedly admitted by the contesting defendant. The revenue record also depict the fact that there was exchange between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 who happened to be brothers, being the sons of Bir Singh. The exchange has been impliedly admitted by the contesting defendant. Even if the exchange is not said to be proved, in that case also, the plaintiff has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession as the possession of the plaintiff/appellant is continuous and in hostile manner to the knowledge of the defendants for more than 12 years, the statutory period for adverse possession. The finding of the first Appellate Court that the possession of the plaintiff is permissible is against the facts and law. Even if the exchange is not held to be valid, since the possession of the plaintiff is continuous and in a hostile manner to the knowledge of the defendants, as such the plaintiff has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. Since the defendant No.1 was not owner of the suit property on account of having acquired ownership right by way of adverse possession by the plaintiff on the date of sale deed in favour of favour of defendant Nos.2 and 4 does not affect the legal rights of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. 13. The counsel for the appellant has relied upon authority reported as Bondar Singh and others v. Nirhal Singh and others, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1905(1), the State of West Bengal Versus The Dalhousie Institute Society, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1178 and Ganda Singh and others versus Ram Narain Singh, 1959 Punjab Law Reporter 374 (FB). It is further submitted that the trial-Court has properly appreciated the authority reported as Ganda Singh (supra), whereas the first Appellate Court has mis-interpreted the said case. 14. Lastly, it has been submitted that the oral exchange followed by delivery of possession is admissible. To support this contention, counsel for the appellant has relied upon authority reported as Bhagwan Kaur versus Ranjit Singh and another, 1990-1, Punjab Law Reporter 290. 15. It is further submitted that the counsel for the respondents may rely upon authority reported as Bhim Singh and others Versus Zile Singh and others,[ 2006(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1530] : 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 97 and may argue that the suit for declaration is not maintainable by the plaintiff on the basis of adverse possession. 15. It is further submitted that the counsel for the respondents may rely upon authority reported as Bhim Singh and others Versus Zile Singh and others,[ 2006(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1530] : 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 97 and may argue that the suit for declaration is not maintainable by the plaintiff on the basis of adverse possession. It is submitted that the said authority is against the spirit of authority reported as Bondar Singh and others (supra). 16. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the first Appellate Court. It is submitted that so far as the pleadings of the plaintiff regarding exchange are concerned, both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the exchange. That being a finding of fact cannot be interfered with in the Regular Second Appeal. Otherwise also, there is nothing on the file as to which land was given to defendant No.1 in the alleged exchange. So, without giving particulars of exchange, no valid exchange can be held to exist. 17. So far as adverse possession is concerned, the first Appellate Court has returned a finding against the plaintiff. After perusal of the entire evidence on the file, it is evident that there is nothing on the file that the said finding is by mis-reading or mis­interpreting the evidence on the file. That being a finding of fact cannot be interfered with in the Regular Second Appeal. The plaintiff is required to plead and prove the ingredients of adverse possession. The first Appellate Court has rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to plead and prove the ingredients of adverse possession. Otherwise also, there is no ouster of defendant from the suit property. The plaintiff is alleged to be in possession of the suit property on the basis of exchange, although that exchange has not been accepted by both the Courts below. Even, according to the pleadings of the plaintiff, the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property is permissive possession, in accordance with exchange. So, the learned first Appellate Court has rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove adverse possession. 18. Even, according to the pleadings of the plaintiff, the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property is permissive possession, in accordance with exchange. So, the learned first Appellate Court has rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove adverse possession. 18. It is further submitted that in authority in Bhim Singh’s case (supra), a single Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that adverse possession can be used as a shield to protect possession and cannot be used as a sword to get decree of declaration regarding ownership on the basis of adverse possession. The counsel for the respondents has relied upon authority reported as Jawala Singh Versus Basta Singh and others, [2007(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1636] : 2007(3) Recent Civil Reports 58 and Saroop Singh Versus Banto and others, [2005(4) LAW HERALD (P&H) 699 (SC)] : 2005(4) Recent Civil Reports (Civil) 599. 19. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both sides and have gone through the record of the case. 20. The plaintiff has challenged the judgment of the first Appellate Court on the ground that both the Courts below have returned a wrong finding that no exchange has taken place between the parties and has also challenged the judgment of the first Appellate Court reversing the finding of the trial Court regarding adverse possession against the plaintiff. 21. So far as the question of exchange is concerned, there is no pleading of the plaintiff as to which of the land was given to defendant No.1 in the alleged exchange. The particulars or khasra numbers have not been given. There cannot be any valid exchange without pleading and proving the fact that exchange has taken place between the parties. Mere stating the fact in the plaint that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property on the basis of exchange is not sufficient to prove the exchange. Even khasra numbers which are alleged to have been given to the defendants in the alleged exchange have not been pleaded or proved on the file. Otherwise also, it being a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove the exchange, the plaintiff cannot challenge the same in this Regular Second Appeal, in view at Section 100 of CPC. Otherwise also, it being a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove the exchange, the plaintiff cannot challenge the same in this Regular Second Appeal, in view at Section 100 of CPC. Even, the counsel for the appellant has not hotly contested the issue of exchange but has laid much stress on the plea of adverse possession. 22. Now, the question arises whether the first Appellate Court has mis-interpreted and mis-read the evidence regarding adverse possession. 23. It is settled law that possession, howsoever long it may be, does not prove adverse possession. The party who claims adverse possession has to plead and prove the ingredients of adverse possession. For adverse possession, the plaintiff has to prove the ouster of other. The plaintiff has also to prove the fact that the possession of the plaintiff was in a hostile manner, adverse to the right of other party, continuous, un interpreted and the knowledge of the adverse party for a period of more than 12 years and only then that party can succeed. The first Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff has failed to plead and prove necessary ingredients of adverse possession. The learned counsel for the appellant could not draw my pointed attention to any document or pleadings which have been mis-interpreted or mis-read by the first Appellate. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Saroop Singh’s case (supra), has held that adverse possession is a question of fact and law and the person who claims adverse possession should show as under:­ (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 continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed.” 24. The plaintiff has not pleaded on which date he came into possession. The plaintiff has taken a stand that he is in possession of the suit property on the basis of exchange. If the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property on the basis of exchange, then plea of adverse possession cannot be accepted being permissive possession, in view of authority reported in Jawala Singh’s case (supra). According to clause C, mentioned above, it is to be shown whether the factum of possession was known to the other party. If the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property on the basis of exchange, then plea of adverse possession cannot be accepted being permissive possession, in view of authority reported in Jawala Singh’s case (supra). According to clause C, mentioned above, it is to be shown whether the factum of possession was known to the other party. The plaintiff has himself stated that defendant No.1 was residing in another village and as such his possession cannot be said to be in a hostile manner, adverse to the rights of the defendant No.1. The controversy raised by the defendant that adverse possession can be used as a shield and not as a sword, in view authority in Bhim Singh’s case (supra), does not assume much importance as the plaintiff has failed to prove the factum of adverse possession. Authority reported in Bonder Singh’s case (supra), relied upon by the counsel for the appellant, shall not advance the case of the appellant, in any manner, as in that case, there was a unregistered document in favour of the plaintiff. In that case, the plaintiff was able to narrate the date when he came in possession of the suit property. In the present case, the plaintiff has taken a vague plea that he is in possession of the suit property for the last 30/35 years and no specific date has been given. Authority in State of West Bengal’s case (supra) is remotely connected to the facts of the present as in that case, the party has been able to prove the possession for the 60 years continuously and uninterruptedly to the knowledge of the real owner. These facts are missing in the present case. So far as authority in Bhagwan Kaur’s case (supra) is concerned, that deals with exchange accompanied by possession. However, as discussed above, the plaintiff has failed to prove the exchange and as such the plaintiff cannot have the benefit of authority in Ganda Singh’s case (supra). 25. In view of above discussion, all the substantial questions of law raised by the plaintiff/appellant stand determined against the plaintiff/appellant and in favour of the respondents. It is held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the exchange as well as adverse possession and consequently both the appeals are without any merit and the same stand dismissed with costs. 25. In view of above discussion, all the substantial questions of law raised by the plaintiff/appellant stand determined against the plaintiff/appellant and in favour of the respondents. It is held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the exchange as well as adverse possession and consequently both the appeals are without any merit and the same stand dismissed with costs. Decree sheets be prepared in both the cases and files of both the cases be returned after due compliance. ———————