JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.12.2006 rendered by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 11/2004 / 111/2005. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that predecessor in interest of the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff” for convenience sake) filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the “defendants” for convenience sake) for declaration and perpetual injunction. According to the averments made by the plaintiffs, the land comprised under Khewat No 8/7, khatauni No.12 under Khasra Nos. 182, 232, 248, 307, 344, 797 kitas 6 measuring 6-10-12 bighas situated in Mauja Murah/560, Illaqua Nira, Sub-Tehsil Walichowki, District Mandi is recorded in the ownership of plaintiff, defendants and in exclusive possession of plaintiff. The suit land was previously in the possession of plaintiff as tenant. In the year 1957, the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff from its previous owner Sh. Mahant Ram for a consideration of Rs. 450/- and to this effect mutation No. 170 dated 16.01.1957 has been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff. The suit land was given to the plaintiff exclusively and was in his possession as tenant during the time of his forefathers and vide aforesaid mutation, the plaintiff has become owner in possession of the suit land. The Land Reforms Officer, Chachiot entered the names of defendants and conferred proprietary rights to the defendants and plaintiff behind the back of plaintiff and as such the conferment of proprietary rights in favour of defendants was wrong, illegal and void ab initio. Defendants were neither tenants nor they were inducted as tenants at any time and the conferment of proprietary rights without any inquiry is against the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and the Rules and to this effect mutation No.58 dated 26.7.1975 sanctioned in favour of defendants is wrong. Plaintiff, alternatively, has also taken the plea of adverse possession. 3. The suit was contested by defendant Nos.1 and 2. According to the averments made in the written statement, plaintiff and defendants were occupancy tenants of the land in questions and the land comprised in Khasra No.177 measuring 1-7-3 bighas and, as such, total tenancy land was 7-19-18 bighas. Plaintiff, alternatively, has also taken the plea of adverse possession. 3. The suit was contested by defendant Nos.1 and 2. According to the averments made in the written statement, plaintiff and defendants were occupancy tenants of the land in questions and the land comprised in Khasra No.177 measuring 1-7-3 bighas and, as such, total tenancy land was 7-19-18 bighas. This land was jointly enjoyed and possessed by Parma Nand and defendants and after the death of their predecessor-ininterest and previously the predecessor-in-interest of the parties were possessing and enjoying the property jointly as occupancy tenants. It is denied that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession as tenant and thereafter he purchased the suit land from Mahant Ram for consideration of Rs. 450/-. The entries showing plaintiff in exclusive possession, are wrong and illegal because plaintiff during his life time was Lambardar and was a shrewd person. He had also been in the company of revenue officials and, as such, in connivance with the revenue officials, entries of possession were incorporated by him. The plea of adverse possession was also denied. 4. Issues were framed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chachiot at Gohar on 14.1.2002. He dismissed the suit on 12.12.2003. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2003. He dismissed the same on 2.12.2006. Hence, the present appeal. It was admitted on 25.4.2007 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether from the facts and circumstances brought on record, the appellants have become owner by way of adverse possession and in negating this plea of the appellant, whether the court below has not taken into consideration the law with regard to adverse possession? 2. Whether a co-sharer in settled possession can be dispossessed, otherwise in due process of law, by other co-sharer? 3. Whether co-tenants out of possession, remains the tenant after the period of one year if remedy against dispossession is not assailed by them? 5. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the appellants have become owners by way of adverse possession. He then contended that a co-sharer in settled possession could not be dispossessed otherwise, i.e. by due process of law by other cosharer. He lastly contended that the suit was within limitation. 6. Mr. He then contended that a co-sharer in settled possession could not be dispossessed otherwise, i.e. by due process of law by other cosharer. He lastly contended that the suit was within limitation. 6. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 8. Since all the substantial questions of law are interconnected and interlinked the same are taken up together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 9. PW-1 Gauri Singh has testified that previously Sh. Parma Nand was owner in possession of the suit land. He died on 25.1.1997 after executing a “will” in their favour Ex.PW-2/A and after his death they came in possession of the suit land as owners. Defendants or their predecessor-in-interest never remained in possession. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the Land Reform Officer has attested the mutation under section 94 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act in favour of defendants on 26.7.1975. He has also admitted that no appeal was filed against the order of the Land Reform Officer before the Collector either by them or by deceased Parma Nand. He has also deposed that during the life time of Parma Nand, defendant No.2 and others tried to take forcible possession of the suit land, but their act was foiled by the attempt of Parma Nand and they were not allowed to take possession from Parma Nand. The suit land was purchased by Parma Nand from Mahant Ram. The plaintiff had also instituted a suit but it was withdrawn to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. He has proved orders Ex.PW-1/C, copies of Jamabandi Ex.PB and Ex.PC, copy of mutation Ex.PD and copy of mutation No. 176 Ex.PE. 10. PW-2 Baghi Rath is the scribe of “will” Ex.PW-2/A. According to him, “will” was executed by Parma Nand and after writing the “will” , its contents were read over to Parma Nand in the presence of witnesses Satya Prakash and Bhup Singh. It was signed by Parma Nand and thereafter witnesses signed the “will” . 11. PW-3 Ram Singh has testified that the “will” was registered in their office. 12. It was signed by Parma Nand and thereafter witnesses signed the “will” . 11. PW-3 Ram Singh has testified that the “will” was registered in their office. 12. PW-4 Balak Ram and PW-5 Bhag Chand have deposed that the suit land was in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs. They have never seen the defendants cultivating the suit land. Defendants have no right, title and interest over the suit land. 13. PW-6 Bhup Singh is the marginal witness of “will” Ex.PW-2/A. He has identified his signatures on “will” , which are Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-6/B. He has deposed that the “will” was got written by Parma Nand from the petition writer. The “will” was read over to Parma Nand by the petition writer and after admitting its contents to be true he put his signatures and after his acknowledgement they signed the “will” . When the “will” was written, Parma Nand was in sound disposing state of mind. 14. Defendants have examined Bhup Singh, Reader to SDM, Gohar. He has testified that in partition proceedings before AC-1st Grade dated 26.11.1991, he has recorded the statement of Parma Nand son of Jhali, Maghu son of Sh. Meshaku, Bhima son of Soju etc. on the instructions of AC-1st Grade. The statement was explained and read over to the witnesses and after admitting it to be correct, it was jointly signed by them. Thereafter, AC- 1st Grade also put his signatures. He has proved Ex.DA. These were correct as per original order Ex.DB and Ex.DC and partition Ex.DE. 15. DW-2 Manghru has deposed that the suit land is situated in Mura Muhal. Previously the owner of the suit land was Sh. Mahant Ram, who belonged to Mandi City. Balak Ram was his father and after his death, he was in possession of the suit land. During the life time of his father Balak Ram, Jhali used to cultivate the suit land and after his death, it was inherited by the plaintiff, Parma Nand, Bashaku and Soju who were occupancy tenants of the suit land. They used to give 1/4th produce of the crop of Mahant Ram and in the year 1975 they have become owners in possession of their shares and they have deposited Rs. 450/- in the Treasury. Thereafter, mutation was attested in their favour by Tehsildar. At the time of mutation, Manghu, Parma Nand and others were present there. They used to give 1/4th produce of the crop of Mahant Ram and in the year 1975 they have become owners in possession of their shares and they have deposited Rs. 450/- in the Treasury. Thereafter, mutation was attested in their favour by Tehsildar. At the time of mutation, Manghu, Parma Nand and others were present there. Parma Nand had received a sum of Rs. 450/-. He had moved an application for partition of the suit land before AC-1st Grade. Plaintiff Parma Nand had no objection to partition the suit land. Plaintiff had sold his share to Gumat Ram and Viri Singh and he has no right, title and interest over the suit land. As per partition, he is in possession of the field named as Gass, Swar, Tipra and Manghu got the field named as Nehra. Parma Nand was Lambardar during his life time. 16. DW-3 Uttam Chand has deposed that defendants are owners in possession of the suit land as per the local names of the fields named as Gass, Swar, Tipra and Nehra. Previously, defendants and plaintiffs were tenants of Mahant Ram and thereafter they became owners in possession. 17. DW-4 Chet Ram has deposed that previously the suit land was in the ownership of Mahant Ram and in possession of tenants Jhali and Balak Ram. Balak Ram and Jhali used to give 1/4th share to Mahant Ram about 40 years ago. He used to collect the crop from the tenants and used to give it to the owner. After the death of Balak Ram, it was inherited by Manghru and after the death of Jhali, the suit land was inherited by Parma Nand, Bashaku etc. After the death of Balak Ram and Jhali, the suit land was in possession of plaintiff and defendants. Thereafter, by way of law, they have become owners in possession. According to him, Halqua Patwari and Kanungo were present on the spot when the suit land was partitioned. At that time, both the parties were present on the spot. Parma Nand was Lambardar. Parma Nand consented for partition and the possession was handed over to both the parties irrespective of their local names. 18. DW-5 Narindera Kumari has brought register of conferment of occupancy rights vide Ex.DW-5/A and certificate Ex.DW-5/B. These were correct as per original record. 19. At that time, both the parties were present on the spot. Parma Nand was Lambardar. Parma Nand consented for partition and the possession was handed over to both the parties irrespective of their local names. 18. DW-5 Narindera Kumari has brought register of conferment of occupancy rights vide Ex.DW-5/A and certificate Ex.DW-5/B. These were correct as per original record. 19. PW-6 Bhup Singh has deposed that in the year 1988, he was Reader to Tehsildar. He has personally identified Parma Nand, who was Lambardar at that time. Parma Nand being land owner was paid compensation of Rs. 453/- by tenants. Thereafter, refund voucher was issued by the Land Reform Officer to Parma Nand and on that day he has identified Parma Nand. Thereafter, L.R.O. released a sum of Rs. 453/- to Parma Nand vide Ex.DW-5/A. 20. According to Jamabandi Ex.PA for the year 1987-88 and Ex.AZ-1 for the year 1992-1993, the suit land was recorded to be jointly owned by the plaintiff alongwith defendants. Plaintiff Parma Nand was recorded to be in possession of the suit land as cosharer. These entries were reiterated in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 Ex.AZ- 2. In Missal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid Ex.PB, plaintiff has been recorded owner of the suit land, but in the column of possession, he has been recorded as tenant alongwith Soju and Basakhu, predecessor of the defendant Nos. 2 to 7 and Manghru defendant No.1. All of them have been recorded as occupancy tenants over the suit land. However, the suit land was recorded in possession of plaintiff Parma Nand as co-sharer being occupancy tenant and owner. In the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1971-72 Ex.PC and Ex.DX, plaintiff has been shown as owner of the suit land, but in the column of possession, defendants alongwith plaintiff have been recorded as occupancy tenants over the suit land. In the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1957-58 Ex.DZ, similar entry existed in which plaintiff Parma Nand has been recorded as owner of the suit land, but in the column of possession Soju and Basakhu, predecessors of defendant Nos. 2 to 7 and Manghru defendant No.1 along with plaintiff have been recorded as occupancy tenants over the suit land. It is, thus, evident from the revenue record produced on record that Soju and Basakhu predecessors of defendant Nos. 2 to 7 and Manghru defendant No.1 along with plaintiff have been recorded as occupancy tenants over the suit land. It is, thus, evident from the revenue record produced on record that Soju and Basakhu predecessors of defendant Nos. 2 to 7 alongwith Manghru were recorded as occupancy tenants over the suit land alongwith plaintiff. According to mutation Ex.PE, Soju and Basakhu predecessors of defendant Nos. 2 to 7 alongwith defendant No.1 continued to be recorded as occupancy tenants over the suit land. The proprietary rights were conferred upon the defendants on 26.7.1975 vide Ex.PD. 21. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that he was sole tenant over the suit land and the defendants were never inducted as tenants over the suit land. The plaintiff has not produced any revenue record to the effect that he was recorded sole tenant over the suit land. He has not examined the legal heirs of Mahant Ram, previous owner, that it was the plaintiff Parma Nand, who was inducted as sole tenant and the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants were never inducted as tenants by the previous owner of the suit land. The entries showing the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants as occupancy tenants were continuous and remained un-rebutted. In the oral evidence, it has come that defendants were occupancy tenants over the suit land. The oral deposition has been duly supported by the revenue record. Parma Nand had agreed to the partition proceedings as per statement of DW-1 Gauri Singh. DW-2 Bhup Singh, Reader to SDM, Gohar has deposed that in partition proceedings before the AC-1st Grade on 26.11.1991, he has recorded the statement of Parma Nand son of Jhali, Maghu son of Bashaku son of Soju etc. on the instructions of AC-1st Grade. The statements were explained and read over to them and after admitting the same to be correct, it was jointly signed by them. While appearing again as DW-6 Bhup Singh has also deposed that he was Reader to Tehsildar in the year 1988. Parma Nand was Lambardar at that time and on 12.7.1988 refund voucher was issued in favour of Parma Nand by the Land Reform Officer regarding payment of Rs. 453/- vide Ex.PW-5/A. DW-6 Bhup Singh has not been cross-examined. While appearing again as DW-6 Bhup Singh has also deposed that he was Reader to Tehsildar in the year 1988. Parma Nand was Lambardar at that time and on 12.7.1988 refund voucher was issued in favour of Parma Nand by the Land Reform Officer regarding payment of Rs. 453/- vide Ex.PW-5/A. DW-6 Bhup Singh has not been cross-examined. It has come in the statement of DW-2 Manghru that ¼th of produce was paid as rent to the owners and during the year 1975 they became owners of the suit land on payment of compensation of Rs. 450/-. Mutation was also attested in their favour in the presence of Parma Nand and he also received the amount of compensation of Rs. 450/-. DW-4 Chet Ram has also deposed that he had been collecting the rent in the shape of produce from the tenants on behalf of Mahant Ram and the predecessors of the defendants have been paying rent to him regarding cultivation of the suit land. DW-5 Narindera Kumari has proved copy of challan form Ex.PW-5/B and copy of refund voucher Ex.PW-5/A. 22. The plaintiff has taken a mutually contradictory stand, i.e. he was sole tenant over the suit land and alternatively he has prayed that he has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. The plea of adverse possession could not be taken by the plaintiff. The plea of adverse possession is a shield and not a sword. Moreover, the plaintiff has not proved the ingredients of adverse possession. It was necessary to prove the ingredients of adverse possession. The plea of plaintiff simplicitor was that defendants tried to interfere in the suit land but their attempts were foiled by the plaintiff. Merely that the attempt of defendants of interfering in the suit land was foiled does not entitle the plaintiff and in no manner proves that the plaintiff has denied the title of the defendants over the suit land. The plaintiff has never denied the right of the co-sharers over the suit land. He has never asserted his own hostile possession over the suit land till the filing of the suit. The possession of one co-sharer is presumed to be on behalf of all the co-sharers until plea of adverse possession is taken and proved. The proprietary rights were conferred upon the defendants on 26.7.1975 and the mutation was also attested. He has never asserted his own hostile possession over the suit land till the filing of the suit. The possession of one co-sharer is presumed to be on behalf of all the co-sharers until plea of adverse possession is taken and proved. The proprietary rights were conferred upon the defendants on 26.7.1975 and the mutation was also attested. As per pleadings, cause of action arose to the plaintiff in the year 1979 and the suit was filed in year 1995. The suit was filed beyond the period of limitation. The suit was required to be filed within one year from the date of conferment of proprietary rights by the Land Reform Officer on 26.7.1975. The conferment of proprietary rights cannot be set aside after a period of 20 years. 23. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tribhuvanshankar vs Amrutlal, (2014) 2 SCC 788 have laid down that the possession to be adverse has to be actual, open, notorious, exclusive and continuous for the requisite frame of time as provided in law. Their Lordships have held as under: “34. The conception of adverse possession fundamentally contemplates a hostile possession by which there is a denial of title of the true owner. By virtue of remaining in possession the possessor takes an adverse stance to the title of the true owner. In fact, he disputes the same. A mere possession or user or permissive possession does not remotely come near the spectrum of adverse possession. Possession to be adverse has to be actual, open, notorious, exclusive and continuous for the requisite frame of time as provided in law so that the possessor perfects his title by adverse possession. It has been held in Secy. Of State for India In Council v. Debendra Lal Khan, 1934 AIR (PC) 23 that the ordinary classical requirement of adverse possession is that it should be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. 37. It is to be borne in mind that adverse possession, as a right, does not come in aid solely on the base that the owner loses his right to reclaim the property because of his willful neglect but also on account of the possessor's constant positive intent to remain in possession. It has been held in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and others v. Revamma and others, 2007 6 SCC 59 .” 24. It has been held in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and others v. Revamma and others, 2007 6 SCC 59 .” 24. The order passed by the Land Reform Officer conferring proprietary rights upon the defendants and mutation No. 58 dated 26.7.1975 attested in favour of defendants is legal and valid. Defendants have become co-owners after conferment of the proprietary rights upon them on 26.7.1975 alongwith plaintiff. It was joint property of the parties. 25. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the proprietary rights have been conferred upon the defendants by AC-II Grade. This question has been raised for the first time during the arguments. This plea is beyond the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission of the appeal. This plea cannot be taken for the first time at the time of arguments before this Court. Moreover, the opposite side cannot be taken by surprise by raising a question, which was never formulated at the time of admission of the appeal. 26. Both the courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties and there is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. 27. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 28. In view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. CMP No. 16/2012 29. CMP No. 16/2012 was preferred by the respondents-defendants for modification of order dated 25.4.2007. The parties were directed to maintain status quo vide order dated 25.4.2007. Reply was filed by the plaintiffs. It was denied that they have changed the nature of the land. It was undertaken that they have no intention to do so till the appeal is finally decided by the Court. Consequently, the present application is disposed of. No costs.