JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J (oral). The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant having felt aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of reversal by the first appellate Court, which was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court is the result of misreading, misinterpretation as well as mis-appreciation of the evidence led by the parties especially in view of the admission of the plaintiff and his witness Rajinder PW-2 who have admitted that the defendant No.1 is in settled possession of the suit land? 2. Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court is right in allowing the appeal when the learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit for non-joinder of necessary party, in view of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court reported in AIR 1981, HP-20?” 2. In brief the facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. Respondent Megh Chand, hereinafter to be referred as the “plaintiff” has filed a suit against the appellant, now referred as the “defendant” for possession qua the suit land based upon his title and also sought mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the apple plants therefrom. In fact, as per revenue records i.e. Misal Hakiat Bandobast Jadid Ext.P1 and Jamabandi for the years 1983-84 Ext.P2, the suit land was owned by the plaintiff, Shri Narayan Chand, (predecessor’s-in-interest of proforma respondent Balbir Singh), Kalag Ram, Roop Chand, Smt. Negpatti and Jaipatti and recorded in the possession of the plaintiff as a co-sharer. The plaintiff claimed that the suit land fell in his share in a family partition and two years before filing the suit, during the settlement operation he came to know about the revenue entries, thus, he requested the defendant aforesaid to hand over the possession of the suit land to him, to which he refused rather he claimed his ownership over the land. Thereafter the plaintiff sought demarcation from the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade (Naib-Tehsildar), but the defendant did not hand over the possession, rather planted about six trees of apple despite objection by the plaintiff, hence, the plaintiff sought the possession of the land as aforesaid. 3. The suit was resisted and contested by defendant Shishi Ram. He took preliminary objections of estoppel, valuation, limitation and bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. Smt. Shwal Dei widow of Narayan Chand. 3. The suit was resisted and contested by defendant Shishi Ram. He took preliminary objections of estoppel, valuation, limitation and bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. Smt. Shwal Dei widow of Narayan Chand. On merits, the defendant claimed his possession over the suit land for the last about 100 years since his forefathers. According to him, he had been cultivating and growing the food-grains there upon. The suit land was abutting to his ownership land. It is also his case that about 40 years back, an apple orchard was raised by him out of which only two plants exist and other had decayed, however new plantation was done which is now ranging from 5 to 13 years. Beside this, there has been one Chuli and three Kunch trees on the boundary thereof. Neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor’s-in-interest objected to his possession. Lot of money was spent on its development. It is also averred that he got the exclusive possession of this land at the time of partition with his brother on 12.1.1978 and the partition deed was prepared in the presence of the plaintiff, since then he is in peaceful possession thereof and as such he had become the owner of the land by way of adverse possession. 4. In replication, the preliminary objections were denied and even paras on merits were reasserted. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession and for mandatory injunction as prayed for? …OPP. 2. Whether the suit has been properly valued, if not, what is the correct valuation? …OP Parties. 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? …OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act, deeds and conduct from filing the suit? …OPD. 5. Whether the defendant No.1become owner of the suit land by adverse possession? …OPD. 6. Relief. 5. Both the parties led their evidence and learned trial Court while appreciating the evidence, decided the issue of adverse possession in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court. …OPD. 5. Whether the defendant No.1become owner of the suit land by adverse possession? …OPD. 6. Relief. 5. Both the parties led their evidence and learned trial Court while appreciating the evidence, decided the issue of adverse possession in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court. On reappraisal of the evidence, learned Additional District Judge, took note of the revenue entries qua the ownership of the land in favour of the plaintiff and the proforma defendants, came to the conclusion that the learned trial Judge lost sight of the fact that the suit was filed based upon the title by the plaintiff and without the proof of the hostility qua possession by the defendant, wrongly came to the conclusion that he had been able to prove the adverse possession only on the basis of admission made by the plaintiff with respect to the length of possession, thus his findings were not based on the proper appreciation of facts and law, as such the appeal was dismissed, hence the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant. 6. Shri J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the defendant vehemently argued that the learned first Appellate Court mis-interpreted and mis-appreciated the evidence on record and came to the wrong conclusion, more specifically, when the plaintiff admitted the possession of the defendant for the last more than 40 years which fact stands established by the statement of the defendant as well as his witnesses, the adverse possession of the defendant ought to have been upheld. He also ventilated that the lower Appellate Court was not right in allowing the appeal for want of non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. Smt. Shwal Dei widow of Naryan Chand and placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in Bali Ram v. Smt. Sunehru and another [ AIR 1981 Himachal Pradesh 20 ]. 7. Contra, Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Shri Janesh Gupta, Advocate for the plaintiff argued that though the possession of the defendant has been admitted by the plaintiff, but mere possession howsoever long would not mean that it had matured in his adverse possession qua the true owner. According to him, in the instant case, defendant has failed to prove the hostility of his possession. According to him, in the instant case, defendant has failed to prove the hostility of his possession. In the suit filed by the plaintiff based upon title, which also enures for the benefit of other cosharers, the suit cannot be dismissed even for not joining others, but according to him, there is nothing on record that the estate of Narayan Chand was inherited by Shwal Dei, whereas Balbir Singh son of Narayan Chand was a recorded owner and he is a party and his estate was properly represented and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant is not retracted in the present case. He also ventilated that all the co-owners who have been shown in the revenue record stand impleaded as party, therefore, there is no defect in the suit. 8. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. 9. No doubt, the present suit for the decree of possession by the plaintiff is based upon the title which is duly substantiated by the revenue record Exts.P1 & P2, referred herein-above whereby plaintiff has been recorded as co-owner alongwith proforma defendants and in the column of possession, he has been shown in exclusive possession thereof as a co-owner. However, the case of the plaintiff is that this land was allotted to him in a private family partition between him and the proforma defendants, but there is no challenge to this averment by the other co-owners, whereas the defendant is a stranger to the land in dispute. Be that as it may, the plaintiff stated in clear and unambiguous words that right from the date when the land was allotted to him, it came to the notice of him two years prior to the time of filing the suit that the land in question was in possession of the defendant. He got the land demarcated and requested the defendant to hand over the possession of it, to which he denied. In cross-examination, he admitted that the defendant and his father knew that this land belonged to the plaintiff because it was mortgaged with the father of the defendant, but denied that the father of the defendant was in possession of the said land for the last about 40 years. In cross-examination, he admitted that the defendant and his father knew that this land belonged to the plaintiff because it was mortgaged with the father of the defendant, but denied that the father of the defendant was in possession of the said land for the last about 40 years. Though he had admitted that the suit land has ‘Kunch’ trees which were being lopped by the defendant for the last about 40-50 years, but according to him, these were on boundary and because of landslide it had come to its centre which fact also stands substantiated by the written statement of the defendant that these trees were on the boundary. He also admitted that the suit land is abutting to the land of the defendant which is under his cultivation. 10. PW2 Rajinder Singh stated that there are in total only five apple trees on the suit land and three others and admitted that the suit land is in possession of the defendant since the time he gained his senses. 11. The defendant also maintained in his statement the long possession of the suit land, but he did not spell out even by giving a fleeting reference any where with respect to the hostility of his possession and from that date having completed 12 years till the filing of the suit to acquire the title of the land by way of adverse possession. In other words, he failed to prove his possession nec vi nec clam, nec precario viz. uninterrupted, peaceful, continuous and hostile possession. 12. It is a settled law that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner, and in order to constitute adverse possession, the possession/ roved must be adequate in continuity, publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner’s must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possession actually informing the real owner of the former’s hostile action. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possession actually informing the real owner of the former’s hostile action. 13. The learned trial Court on the basis of the above evidence took note to the submissions of the defendant, who himself did not know that he was occupying the land of the plaintiff and considered to be of his own because of the longevity of his possession and alternatively he raised the plea of adverse possession being in possession of the suit land for the last about 40 years to which he failed to prove in accordance with law. Further, no document has been produced by the defendant showing that at the time of partition between him and his brothers, a partition deed was prepared in the presence of the plaintiff as alleged. That could have been the best and relevant evidence in the present context, so as to impute the knowledge of hostility of possession to the plaintiff. The statement of DW2 Bhagat Ram is of no avail to the defendant as he was not aware of the suit land and even DW3 Meechu Ram did not confirm to the standard so as to conclude the adverse possession in favour of the defendant. There is also nothing on record to show what was the exact date, to which adverse possession started running. 14. The learned first Appellate Court thus rightly conclude that when the plaintiff had filed a suit for possession based upon the title and the defendant had taken plea of adverse possession to defend his title, in that eventuality of the defendant failure to prove his adverse possession, the suit filed by the plaintiff could not have been dismissed on the ground that the defendant failed to prove the possession within a period of 12 years prior to the filing of the suit as held by the apex Court in Indira v. Asumgaus [ AIR 1999 SC 1549 ]. 15. Further, a co-owner can sue a trespasser for possession and can successfully get a decree for possession against the trespasser provided he sues on behalf of all the co-sharers or for the benefit of all the co-owners. 15. Further, a co-owner can sue a trespasser for possession and can successfully get a decree for possession against the trespasser provided he sues on behalf of all the co-sharers or for the benefit of all the co-owners. The instant suit is not bad for non-joinder of Smt. Shwal Dei widow of Narayan Chand as already stated above since there is nothing on record to show that the estate was inherited by him or she was shown as a co-owner, whereas Balbir Singh his son who is reflected as a co-owner in the revenue papers referred above is already on record as proforma defendant, who did not choose to contest the suit. The judgment of this Court in Bali Ram’s case supra is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as in that case Bali Ram had filed a suit for possession denying the title of others to the built up structure over the suit Khasra seeking demolishing of the house illegally built up by the defendant claiming the sole ownership of the suit land without impleading the other co-sharers. But in the instant case, co-sharers/ owners are already impleaded as proforma party and as already stated above, though Smt. Shwal Dei is widow of Narayan Chand, but his son Balbir Singh is already a party and has been reflected in the revenue record whereas name of Shwal Dei has not even been shown in the revenue record, therefore suit is not bad for not joining her as a party. 16. Therefore, I do not find that the learned first appellate Court has wrongly misinterpreted and mis-appreciated the evidence and law in the above background facts and merit in appeal filed by the defendant, hence dismissed. The substantial questions of law stand answered accordingly. 17. No other point is urged or pressed. 18. The parties are left to bear their own costs.