JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8.1.2002 passed by II ADJ, Shujalpur, District- Shajapur in civil first appeal No. 9-A/2001 whereby judgment dated 27.11.1990 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Shujalpur in civil suit No. 54-A/1987 whereby suit filed by the appellant was decreed was set aside, present appeal has been filed. 2. The appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 10.4.2002 on the following substantial questions of law: 1) "Whether lower appellate court was justified in reversing decree passed by the trial Court which had decreed the suit?" 2) "Whether lower appellate Court was right in exercising powers under section 96 when it is clear from the record that it did not while reversing finding of the trial Court discuss the evidence much less in detail led by the parties?" 3)"Whether impugned judgment can be regarded as a judgment in confirmity with requirement of section 96 of CP Code?" 3. Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 19.1.1982 wherein it was alleged that land bearing survey No. 446/1 measuring0.105 hectare is situated at Shujalpur. It was alleged that appellant is Bhumiswami of the land. It was alleged that in the revenue record name of Jagannath and Harisingh predecessor in title of respondent No.2 and 3 is recorded as Bhumiswami which is wrong. It was alleged that appellant entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property in the year 1962. In alternative it was also alleged that appellant is in occupation of the land since last 20 years continuously without any interruption as Bhumiswami within the knowledge of respondents. It was alleged that appellant has become owner of the suit property on the basis of adverse possession. It was prayed that it be declared that appellant is Bhumiswami of the suit land and respondents be restrained not to interfere into the possession of the appellant. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing written statement wherein all the plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that appellant is in occupation of the suit land. It was also denied that appellant entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property. It was denied that appellant is owner of the suit property on the basis of hostile title. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. It was denied that appellant is in occupation of the suit land. It was also denied that appellant entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property. It was denied that appellant is owner of the suit property on the basis of hostile title. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court decreed the suit against which an appeal was filed by the respondent No. 1 to 5 while was allowed and judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was set-aside against which present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned judgment passed by learned appellate Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set-aside. It is submitted that after due appreciation evidence learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the appellant on the basis of hostile title. It is submitted that learned appellate Court was duty bound to appreciate the evidence on record and without appreciating the evidence learned appellate Court committed error in setting-aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. It is submitted that without taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record learned appellate Court set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court which is not permissible under the law. It is submitted that the appeal tiled by the appellant be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by learned appellate Court be set-aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 5 submits that learned trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the appellant on the basis of hostile title. It is submitted that no relief was claimed by the appellant on the basis of hostile title and no issue was framed in that regard. It is submitted that law relating to hostile title is well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision in the matter of Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan (2009) 16 SCC 517 . It submitted that appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed. 6. From perusal of the record, it appears that to prove the case, appellant has filed the documents Ex. P/1 to Ex. It submitted that appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed. 6. From perusal of the record, it appears that to prove the case, appellant has filed the documents Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/5 which are the Revenue Record for Samvat 2027 to 2045 i.e. for the year 1970-1971 to 1988-1989 in which name of predecessor-in-title of respondent No.1 to 5 have recorded as Bhumiswami and name of Matam Shah is recorded in column No. 12 as occupier. 7. Apart from this appellant has examined himself as PW-1, Raheem as PW-2, Premnarayan as PW-3 and Juma Shah PW-4, whereas respondents No.1 to 5 has examined, Jagannath respondent No.3 as DW 1, Shivkumar Singh as DW 2. 8. After due appreciation of evidence learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant, so far as it relates to declaration of Bhumiswami rights on the basis of Hostitle -title. However, the suit was decreed on the ground of adverse possession which was reversed in appeal. In the plaint, only allegation about the hostile title is to the effect that appellant is in occupation of the suit land in compliance of agreement to purchase within the knowledge since last 20 years continuously, therefore, appellant has became Bhumiswami on the basis of hostile title. 9. To prove the case on the basis of hostile title, appellant No.1 Shauket Shah, who was examined as PW 1, has stated that from that time when he took the loan respondents are not in possession of the land and except this, absolutely, there is no evidence to prove the hostile title. Jaganath Singh, who was examined as DW -1, has stated in his Examination-in-Chief that in the year 1977 appellant took the possession of the suit land forcibly. 10. In para 13 of judgment it has been observed that appellant was in occupation of suit land, since last more than 12 years. Learned trial Court has passed the decree on the basis of hostile title on the ground that the possession of the appellant was since last more than 12 years continuously. 11. Learned appellate Court in para 7 of this judgment has observed that since as per the appellant he came into the possession of the suit land under an agreement, therefore, no right has accrued to the appellant on the basis of hostile title. 11. Learned appellate Court in para 7 of this judgment has observed that since as per the appellant he came into the possession of the suit land under an agreement, therefore, no right has accrued to the appellant on the basis of hostile title. It appears that no issue was framed by the learned trial Court relating to the title of the appellant on the basis of hostile title. In the matter of Hemaji (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: "A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his title was hostile to the property claimed. The ordinary classical requirement of adverse possession is that it should be nee vi, nee flam, nee precario and the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competition." The Hon'ble appellate Court has further observed that: "The law of adverse possession which ousts an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation is irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate. The law as it exists is extremely harsh for the true owner and a windfall for a dishonest person who had illegally taken possession of the property of the true owner. The law ought not to benefit a person who in a clandestine manner takes possession of the property of the owner in contravention of law. This in substance would mean that the law gives seal of approval to the illegal action or activities of a rank trespasser or who had wrongfully taken possession of the property of the true owner. The law should not place premium on dishonesty by legitimizing possession of a rank trespasser and compelling the owner to lose his possession only because of his inaction in taking back the possession within limitation." 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, this Court is of the view that learned appellate Court was justified in reversing the decree passed by learned trial Court, which has decreed the suit filed by the appellant on the basis of hostile title. This Court is also of the view that learned appellate Court was right in exercising power, under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in reversing the finding of the trial Court. 13. This Court is also of the view that learned appellate Court was right in exercising power, under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in reversing the finding of the trial Court. 13. In view of this, learned appellate Court committed no error in setting aside the judgement and decree passed by learned trial Court. However, since undisputedly, appellant is in occupation of suit land light from 1977, as admitted by the respondent Jagannath Singh himself, therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled for a limited decree of injunction as appellant is in settled possession, to the effect that respondents No. 1 to 5 shall not take the possession of suit land forcibly without following the process of law. Substantial questions of law are answered in favour of respondents. 14. With the aforesaid observations appeal tiled by the appellant stands disposed. No order as to costs.