JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. This is the defendants Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Suit filed by original plaintiff Shesh Dhar (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein) being Civil Suit R.B.T. No. 208/99/92, titled as Shesh Dhar v. Guddo Ram alias Rajesh Kumar, stands decreed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Court No. 2, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., in terms of judgment and decree dated 27.12.2000. Such findings of fact, judgment and decree stands affirmed by the District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala, in terms of judgment and decree dated 20.2.2004, passed in Civil Appeal No. 30-G/XIII-2001, titled as Guddo Ram alias Rajesh Kumar v. Shesh Dhar (now deceased) through LRs., filed by the defendant Guddo Ram (appellant herein). Thus, the present appeal arises out of concurrent findings of fact. 2. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "1. Whether the two courts below have erred in placing reliance upon Ext. P-2, a judgment passed in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act in coming to the conclusion that the title of the plaintiff qua the suit land stood proved in view thereof?" 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out in the present appeal. 4. Ext. P-2 is the judgment dated 21.9.1976, passed by Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharmshala in case No. 56 of 71, titled as Guddo Ram & another v. Shesh Dhar & others, whereby suit for possession filed by Guddo Ram and Inderjit against Shesh Dhar stands dismissed. Undisputedly, such findings, judgment and decree have attained finality. Significantly para-5 of the said judgment observes that one Tulsi Ram appeared as a witness and deposed that the suit land stood sold by him and his brother in favour of Shesh Dhar. Also Guddo and Inderjit were never in possession thereof. 5. After the dismissal of the aforesaid suit Guddo Ram forcibly dispossessed Shesh Dhar and raised construction. 6. Resultantly on 20.4.1992 Shesh Dhar filed suit for possession and demolition of the super-structure raised on the land in question against Guddo Ram. Significantly Guddo Ram pleaded title by way of adverse possession. Also Guddo and Inderjit were never in possession thereof. 5. After the dismissal of the aforesaid suit Guddo Ram forcibly dispossessed Shesh Dhar and raised construction. 6. Resultantly on 20.4.1992 Shesh Dhar filed suit for possession and demolition of the super-structure raised on the land in question against Guddo Ram. Significantly Guddo Ram pleaded title by way of adverse possession. While deciding the issues with regard to title, Courts below rightly held Shesh Dhar to have proven the same in his favour, more so, on the strength of judgment dated 21.9.1976 (Ext. P-2). 7. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the courts below erred in placing reliance upon the said judgment while holding the plaintiff entitled to possession of the suit land. It be only observed that plea of adverse possession stands repelled by the courts below and there cannot be any error with the same and more so in the light of earlier lis inter se the parties. A person claiming adverse possession has no equities in his favour since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner. All ingredients including animus dissidendi has not to be only pleaded but proved on record in the light of decision rendered in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar and others, (2011) 10 SCC 404 . 8. Consequently, I do not find any reason or ground sufficient enough to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. In my considered view the judgments passed by the Courts below cannot be said to be perverse or that the evidence led by the parties was not correctly and completely appreciated. As such, the substantial question of law is answered accordingly and the present appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.