JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. dated 29.11.2002, passed in Civil Appeal No. 28/1999. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), has instituted a suit for possession against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). According to the averments made in the plaint, the land comprised in Khata No. 163 min, Khatoni No. 568, previous Kh No. 1986/860 min, present Kh. No. 1305, measuring 34.65 sq. meters, was situated in Up-Mahal Gaura, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P., as per jamabandi for the year 1982-83. The plaintiff along with other co-sharers was owner-in-possession over the suit property and prior to settlement, the suit property formed part of Khata No. 269 min, khatoni No. 384 min, Kh. No. 1986/860, measuring 16 marla as per jamabandi for the year 1978-79, situated in Up-Mahal Gaura Kalan, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. However, during the settlement operation, the defendant in collusion with the settlement authorities got the entry of possession recorded in his name qua the land in suit without any notice and inquiry by the settlement staff. It is, in these circumstances, the suit has been filed. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, he had become owner-in-possession of the suit property by way of adverse possession. He was in possession of the suit property since 1965. The settlement staff after following the procedure and giving notice recorded the possession of the defendant over the suit property in which the courtyard of the house of defendant was situated. 4. Replication was filed and the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur framed the issues on 23.2.1995 and additional issue was also framed on 11.12.1997. The suit was decreed 12.2.1999. The defendant, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur. He dismissed the same on 29.11.2002. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. The regular second appeal was admitted on 2.12.2003 on the following substantial question of law: “1. The suit was decreed 12.2.1999. The defendant, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur. He dismissed the same on 29.11.2002. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. The regular second appeal was admitted on 2.12.2003 on the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether both the courts below have acted in a highly erroneous and perverse manner in not considering the possibility of the plaintiff-respondent compensated in monetary measures when the hardships to the defendant-appellant were greater as envisaged under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act? 2. Whether both the Court below have acted in illegal and perverse manner in not dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent on the question of estoppels when it was evidence from the record that the plaintiff-respondent neither objected for raising of the construction by the defendant-appellant nor instituted the suit with promptness?” 6. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the plaintiff could be compensated monetarily instead of causing hardship to the defendant. He then contended that the plaintiff has not raised any objection at the time of raising of construction by the defendant. 7. Since both the substantial questions of law are inter-connected, hence are taken up together to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. 9. The plaintiff Satnam has appeared as PW-1. He deposed that the defendant has managed to record the entries of suit land in his name in collusion with the settlement staff during settlement operation. No suggestion was put to him in his cross-examination that defendant was in possession of the suit land since 1965. The plaintiff has denied that the suit land was in possession of the defendant. The settlement staff did not issue any notice to the parties. He also deposed that he was owner of the land in suit along with his brothers and sisters measuring 34.65 sq. meters. 10. PW-2 Parmod Chand has duly corroborated the statement of the plaintiff. According to him, the suit land was adjoining to his plot and plaintiff was owner of the same. The defendant, however, is stated to have occupied the suit land erroneously after the settlement operation in 1982- 83. meters. 10. PW-2 Parmod Chand has duly corroborated the statement of the plaintiff. According to him, the suit land was adjoining to his plot and plaintiff was owner of the same. The defendant, however, is stated to have occupied the suit land erroneously after the settlement operation in 1982- 83. It is the plaintiff who was in possession of the suit property. 11. Defendant Dina Nath has appeared as DW-1. According to him, he was in possession of the suit land measuring 2 marlas for the last 30-35 years. The land in suit was not ancestral but purchased by him about 30-35 years ago. The original owner of the same was Khazana and now he is in possession of the same. Nobody objected to his possession during 30-35 years. The settlement took place in the Tika about 14-15 years ago. The settlement staff verified the revenue record before starting the settlement operation and villagers were present at the time of verification. 12. The plaintiff has also placed on record Ext. P-1 copy of jamabandi for the year 1982-83, Ext. P-2 copy of jamabandi for the year 1978-79, Ext. P-3 copy of jamabandi for the year 1954-55, Ext. P-4 copy of jamabandi for the year 1962-63, Ext. P-5 copy of jamabandi for the year 1967-68, Ext. P-6 copy of jamabandi for the year 1972-73 and Ext. P-7 copy of jamabandi for the year 1978-79. 13. The old Khasra No. of the suit land was 1986/860. According to the jamabandi for the year 1954-55, Ext. P-3, the old Kh. No. 1986/860 was assigned new Kh. Nos. 1149 and 1305 as per copy of Missal Haquiat for the year 1983-84 Ext. P-1. The area in new Kh. No. 1149 was shown in this document as 223.78 sq. meters whereas the area of suit land i.e. new Kh. No. 1305 is as 34.65 sq. mtrs. According to Ext. P-3 copy of jamabandi for the year 1954-55, one Parsa was owner-in-possession of the suit land, however, vide mutation No. 803, the same was purchased by Smt. Chinti Devi, the mother of the plaintiff. The name of Smt. Chinti Devi remained in revenue entries as owner-in-possession till 1978-79 as per Ext. P-4 copy of jamabandi for the year 1962-63, Ext. P-5 copy of jamabandi for the year 1967-68, Ext. P-6 copy of jamabandi for the year 1972-73 and Ext. The name of Smt. Chinti Devi remained in revenue entries as owner-in-possession till 1978-79 as per Ext. P-4 copy of jamabandi for the year 1962-63, Ext. P-5 copy of jamabandi for the year 1967-68, Ext. P-6 copy of jamabandi for the year 1972-73 and Ext. P-7 copy of jamabandi for the year 1978-79. After her death, mutation No. 1642 was attested in favour of legal representatives, including plaintiff as per entries recorded in remarks column of Ext. P-7/P-2. 14. The entries qua the suit land for the first time came to be recorded in the name of the defendant in Missal Haquit Bandobast Jadid for the year 1982-83, Ext. P-1. There is nothing in this document, even to suggest remotely, as to in which capacity the defendant was put in possession thereof. These were stray entries without there being any formal order of any competent authority. In case, the defendant was in possession of the suit property, the entries should have been shown in the revenue record. The case of the defendant is mutually destructive. According to him, he has purchased the land and also asserted for adverse possession of the suit land. The defendant has even failed to prove the plea of adverse possession except by leading his self serving statement. He failed to prove that he was in continuous possession of the suit property. The person who puts up the plea of adverse possession has to prove continuous, visible, open as of right, notorious as an owner and hostile to the true owner. The party is also required to prove as to on which date he has come into possession and what was the period of such adverse possession. The defendant has miserably failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit property since 1965. The plaintiff has duly proved that he was one of the co-owners of the suit land and defendant has managed the stray entry in his favour during settlement operation. The Courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. The Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the suit was maintainable against the defendant. The plaintiff was not estopped from filing the suit in view of the observations made hereinabove. The defendant has even not given the date on which he has purchased the suit land from Khajana Ram. The Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the suit was maintainable against the defendant. The plaintiff was not estopped from filing the suit in view of the observations made hereinabove. The defendant has even not given the date on which he has purchased the suit land from Khajana Ram. Thus, there is no illegality in the trial Court’s judgment whereby the decree for possession in respect of land comprised in Khata No. 163 min, Khatoni No. 568, Kh. No. 1305, measuring 34.65 sq. meters, was situated in Up-Mahal Gaura, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. was passed. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.