Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Shimla, H.P. dated 20.09.2014, passed in Civil Appeal No.8-R/13 of 2011. 2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) instituted a suit for possession against the predecessor of the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants, for the convenience sake) Bhajan Dass. According to the plaintiff, he is co-owner on the suit land as per jamabandi for the year 2000-01. The suit land was in illegal possession of the defendant Bhajan Dass, who was a trespasser. The plaintiff requested the defendant on 20.9.2008 to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land but he refused to do so. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant Bhajan Dass. According to him, the suit land was owned by the father of the plaintiff Sh. Jog Raj. He sold this land to defendant long time ago and has also handed over the possession to the defendant. He was not the trespasser but the owner. He was coming in possession over the suit land for the last 30 years without any interruption. 4. The replication was filed by the plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Court No. I, Rohru, framed the issues on 2.12.2009. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Court No. I, Rohru, on 16.9.2011. The appellants filed an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge-I, Shimla against the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2011. The learned Addl. District Judge-I, Shimla, H.P., dismissed the same on 20.9.2014. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. Mr. Vipender Roach, Advocate, has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendant. He also contended that the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the oral as well as the documentary evidence placed on record. 6. I have heard the learned Advocate and gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. 7. The plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. He has led his evidence by filing affidavit Ext. PW-1/A. He has reiterated all the facts mentioned in the plaint in his affidavit. He denied the suggestion that the defendant came in possession of the suit land prior to his birth. 7. The plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. He has led his evidence by filing affidavit Ext. PW-1/A. He has reiterated all the facts mentioned in the plaint in his affidavit. He denied the suggestion that the defendant came in possession of the suit land prior to his birth. He denied the suggestion that the defendant was in possession of the suit land for the last 50 years. He denied that his grandfather has sold the suit land and one writing was also prepared by Vijay Nand ‘Nunberdar’ in this regard. He also denied that one ‘tehrirnama’ was prepared between Manohar Dass and Binda Ram in the year 1955. He has shown his ignorance that possession of Bhajan Dass was found since settlement. 8. PW-2 Chaman Lal also led his evidence by filing affidavit Ext. PW-2/A. According to him, the plaintiff Madan Lal alongwith other cosharers are recorded owners of the suit land and defendant has no concern with the suit land. The possession of the defendant over the suit land is illegal. He has admitted that Madan Lal used to reside at Chopal. He has shown his ignorance that in the year, 1955, Binda Ram (grandfather of the plaintiff) has sold land to the defendant for consideration of Rs. 2500/- and possession was also handed over to Manohar Dass. 9. The defendant has appeared as DW-1. He has led his evidence by filing affidavit Ext. DW-1/A. According to him, the grandfather of the plaintiff, Sh. Binda Ram had sold the suit land to his father in the year 1955 and possession was also handed over on the spot. According to him, the plaintiff alongwith other villagers are having knowledge qua possession of defendant over the suit land. He has stated that after the death of his father, he is coming in possession over the suit land without any objection from any side. He has planted 300 apple plants upon the suit land. During his cross-examination, he stated that portion A to A of his written statement Ext. PA at para No. 1 is wrong and whatever, has been written in para No. 2 of his affidavit Ext. DW-1/A is correct. He was coming in possession of the suit land since 1955. According to him, writing mark ‘X’ was written by Vijay Nand and villagers in presence of witness Sadhi Ram. 10. DW-2 Vinod Sharma, is Ahlmad. PA at para No. 1 is wrong and whatever, has been written in para No. 2 of his affidavit Ext. DW-1/A is correct. He was coming in possession of the suit land since 1955. According to him, writing mark ‘X’ was written by Vijay Nand and villagers in presence of witness Sadhi Ram. 10. DW-2 Vinod Sharma, is Ahlmad. He has produced the record of writing mark ‘X’. 11. DW-3 Birja Nand deposed that he knew how to write and read Urdu. He used to translate Urdu into Hindi. He has translated the document mark ‘X’ from Urdu to Hind which is Ext. DW-3/A. Hindi translation has been written by Puran Chand at his instance. During his cross-examination, he stated that he has not appended his certificate upon the document Ext. DW-3/a to the effect that he has prepared the same because he has not written the same. 12. DW-4 Vidya Prakash has led his evidence by filing DW-4/A. According to him, defendant Bhajan Dass is his father and he has appointed him as power of attorney. His father has planted apple orchard over the suit land about 20-25 years back. They were coming in possession over the suit land for the last 50 years. Binda Ram has sold this land to his grandfather Manohar Dass and to this effect his father has told him. 13. DW-5 Charan Singh has led his evidence by filing affidavit Ext. DW-5/A. According to him, defendant was coming in possession over the suit land for the last 50 years without any interruption. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the suit land was never demarcated in his presence so he has no knowledge of the boundaries of the land. He heard that Binda had sold the suit land to Manohar Dass. He has also shown his ignorance that plaintiff and other co-sharers are owners of the suit land. 14. According to the jamabandi Ext. PW-1/B, the plaintiff alongwith other co-sharers have been recorded as joint owners of the suit land. However, in the column of possession, defendant Bhajan Dass has been shown in possession over the suit land. PW-1 Madan Lal plaintiff has corroborated the averments contained in the plaint. The statement of PW-1 Madan Lal has been corroborated and supported by PW-2 Chaman Lal. However, in the column of possession, defendant Bhajan Dass has been shown in possession over the suit land. PW-1 Madan Lal plaintiff has corroborated the averments contained in the plaint. The statement of PW-1 Madan Lal has been corroborated and supported by PW-2 Chaman Lal. According to the defendant, the father of the plaintiff Jog Raj had sold the land in dispute to the defendant many years back and as such, the defendant is owner of the same. However, when defendant has appeared as DW-1, he deposed that the grandfather of the plaintiff Binda Ram has sold the land in dispute to the father of the defendant and defendant is coming in possession over the suit land from the year 1955. The evidence led by the defendant is contrary to the pleadings. 15. Ext. DW-3/A Writing, has not been proved in accordance with law. The original of writing Ext. DW-3/A has not been produced in the Court nor any witness to the writing has been examined. Even in Ext. DW-3/A, no specification of the suit land has been mentioned in writing nor any description of the adjoining land has been stated therein. The document Ext. DW-3/A was not registered, though the value of the land was more than Rs. 100/-. The defendant, though has taken the plea of adverse possession but the basic ingredients of the same have not been proved. The defendant has failed to connect DW-3/A qua the suit land. The Courts below have correctly appreciated the ocular as well as documentary evidence placed on record by the parties. 16. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.