JUDGMENT Arya, J 1. This appeal under section 100 CPC by the defendants No.5, 6, 7 and 8 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.5.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.28A/2011 by II Additional District Judge, Vidisha District Vidisha partially allowing the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 19.7.2010 in civil suit No.92A/2008. The suit has been decreed to the effect that the plaintiffs'/respondents No.1 and 2 are entitled to half of 1/3rd share (Kamla Bai and Narmada Bai) with equal shares of agricultural land falling in survey Nos.87 area 03.45 hectare, 252 area 0.052 hectare, 511 area 0.336 hectare, 512 area 0.261 hectare, 513 area 0.597 hectare, total area 1.621 hectare (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'). 2. Following substantial question of law needs to be addressed as contended by the learned senior counsel for appellants : “(i) Whether the factum of alleged 'will' executed by Kamla Bai in favour of Gopilal father of defendants No.5, 6, 7 and 8 to the exclusion of plaintiffs' No.1 and 2, husband and son respectively was proved?” In the alternate: (ii) Whether Kamla Bai had actually executed the 'will' in favour of Gopilal father of defendants No.5, 6, 7 and 8? 3. With the consent of learned senior counsel for the appellants' and looking to the nature of the dispute involved in the instant case, appeal is heard finally. Record of the case is perused. 4. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and partition of the suit land which was dismissed by the trial Court. 5. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that admittedly in the year 1986­87, the suit land is jointly owned by Kamla Bai, Narmada Bai daughters of Lakshman Prasad had 1/3rd share each, Gopilal and Mathura Prasad both sons of Durga Prasad had 2/3rd share each in the suit land. It is an admitted position that Mathura Prasad had got divided his share and with his share separated himself in the past having taken the entire area falling in survey No.513, hence, the remaining land was to the extent of 0.056 hectare in that survey number. It is also an admitted fact that all the aforesaid four persons have passed away. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are heirs of Kamla Bai being husband and son respectively. Plaintiff No.3 is heir of Mathura Prasad. It is also an admitted fact that all the aforesaid four persons have passed away. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are heirs of Kamla Bai being husband and son respectively. Plaintiff No.3 is heir of Mathura Prasad. Defendants No.1 to 4 are heirs of Narmada Bai and defendants No.5 to 8 are heirs of Gopilal. It is contended that while Mathura Prasad's share was apportioned in revenue case No.12A­27/86­87 either due to negligence of patwari or otherwise in the revenue record against the name of Gopilal instead of 2/6th, 2/3rd share is recorded which has resulted into reduction of holdings of Kamla Bai and Narmda Bai. Likewise, certain mistakes were committed by patwari while making entries in relation to survey No.513 as a result in place of 0.501 hectare, 0.096 hectare is recorded and share of Mathura Prasad was shown to be 0.0541 hectare in place of 0.501 hectare without knowledge and notice to the plaintiffs. Above all, behind the back of the plaintiffs, the name of Kamla Bai was deleted and against name of Narmada Bai 0.187 hectare has wrongly been mentioned in place of 0.270 hectare by Gopilal in collusion with patwari Therefore, there were serious illegalities and irregularities in the revenue record as regards holdings of Kamla Bai and Narmada Bai and at the instance of defendants No.5 to 8 in active collusion with the patwari. Hence, the instant suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction as per agreed share of the original owners in respect of the suit land. 6. Defendants No.5 to 8 have filed written statement disputing and denying the claim of the plaintiffs' inter alia contending that Kamla Bai had executed a 'will' dated 9.8.1985 and had bequeathed her share of suit land in favour of Gopilal during her life time. Accordingly, agricultural holding of her share has been mutated in the revenue record in the name of Gopilal, hence plaintiffs' have no right in the suit land and prayed ford ismissal of the suit. 7. Trial Court based upon the aforesaid pleadings had framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs'. 8. On appeal, the first appellate Court while addressing upon the issue as regards execution of the 'will' dated 9.8.1985 has discussed the oral and documentary evidence on record from paragraph 27 onwards. 7. Trial Court based upon the aforesaid pleadings had framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs'. 8. On appeal, the first appellate Court while addressing upon the issue as regards execution of the 'will' dated 9.8.1985 has discussed the oral and documentary evidence on record from paragraph 27 onwards. Defendants No.5 to 8 have asserted that by virtue of 'will' dated 9.8.1985, the agricultural holding to the extent of share of Kamla Bai since stood recorded in the name of Gopilal vide exhibit D/3, it was vested upon Gopilal and after his death upon the defendants No.5 to 8. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have no right, title and interest over the suit land. The plaintiffs have no knowledge about the suit land and for the last 20 years they have remained quiet and did not assert any right over the suit land in any manner whatsoever. Hence, plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief and, therefore, the suit deserved to be dismissed. The Court below held that to claim title with the supporting evidence of mutation regarding partition was upon the defendants No.5 to 8 to prove the 'will' allegedly executed by Kamla Bai in favour of Gopilal. Neither the 'will' nor copy thereof has been produced by the defendants No.5 to 8 before the Courts below. There is no averment in the written statement that the aforesaid 'will' is not in their custody. As such, irresistible conclusion is that adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendants No.5 to 8 in the context of the alleged 'will' in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court reported in AIR 1968 SC 1413 , Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif and others. 9. Mere assertion as regards 'will' and the mutation based thereupon shall not confer any title upon the defendants No.5 to 8 in respect of agricultural holding falling to the share of Kamla Bai. Consequently, 'will' having not been proved, the first appellate Court has held that the suit land flows upon the natural heirs of Kamla Bai, i.e., plaintiffs No.1 and 2 under Hindu Succession Act, 1925. Accordingly, plaintiffs No.1 and 2 since have share in the suit land, they have been held to be entitled for the share to the extent of half of 1/3rd of the entire agricultural holding of the suit land. Accordingly, plaintiffs No.1 and 2 since have share in the suit land, they have been held to be entitled for the share to the extent of half of 1/3rd of the entire agricultural holding of the suit land. As regards point of limitation, it is held that the the plaintiffs are husband and son of late Kamla Bai seeking partition of the suit land having the effect of recurring cause of action and, therefore, suit cannot be said to be hit by the provisions of Limitation Act, as claimed. 10. Defendants No.5 to 8 in the second breath have asserted title by adverse possession but there is no averment on that behalf in the written statement. 11. It is apposite to state law as regards to acquisition of title by adverse possession as consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and followed by the various High Courts including the jurisdictional High Court. 12.The facts required to plead and prove adverse possession when the party to a lis set up a plea of acquisition of title adverse possession has to be specific as regards to period and date from which he claims possession and then have to prove that the possession was adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that his possession was actually visible, exclusive, hostile and continues over the statutory period as contemplated under Article 65 of the Limitation Act to the knowledge of the real owner. Mere physical act of exclusive possession by, itself, cannot justify the claim of adverse possession. 13. A person pleading adverse possession has no equity in his favour if some one asserts acquisition of title by adverse possession. It, in fact, amounts to trying to defeat the right of true owner and, therefore, burden is very heavy upon such person to prove title by adverse possession and for that he has to plead and establish all the facts necessary as aforesaid to establish his claim. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and others, (2004)10 SCC 779 , in para­11 has observed as under : “11. In the eye of the 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. In the eye of the 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 the 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 precerio”, 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. (see S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SCC 1254 : Parisinni v. Sukhi, (1993)4 SCC 375 : (1993 AIR SCW 3606) and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567 ) : ( AIR 1997 SC 2930 ) Physical fact of exclusive possession and 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 possession and 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 the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his 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. (Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr) v. Raj Kumari Sharma (1996) 8 SCC 128 ) : ( AIR 1996 SC 869 ).” 15. During the course of hearing learned senior counsel has placed reliance on various pronouncements besides the decision reported in AIR 1970 Orissa 82 Ram Nahak and others v. Sita Dakuani and others, however, the facts of those cases are different and, hence not helpful to the appellants. 16. Having gone through the impugned judgments rendered by the Courts below and the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that first appellate Court was fully justified in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court to the extent of share of Kamla Bai over the suit land. 17. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is upheld and the suit of plaintiffs' is partially decreed. Hence, the question of law is answered in the affirmative. 18. The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.