Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1989 (HP)

Budh Ram v. Tholu

2016-09-16

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.4.2007, passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., affirming the judgment and decree dated 8.9.2006, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kullu, H.P., in Civil Suit No.167 of 2005, whereby suit of the plaintiff for declaration by way of adverse possession was dismissed. 2. The brief facts, as emerged from the record are that the present appellant-plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff has become absolute owner in possession of khasra Nos. 2127, 2146, 2172 and 2173, khata/ khatauni No.718/1397, measuring 1-13 bighas situated in Phati Parli Kothi Kotkandi, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P., as per jamabandi for the year, 2001-02 by way of adverse possession. Since 1989, the plaintiff is in open, peaceful, continuous and hostile possession of the suit land to the notice and knowledge of the defendants and general public at large. Plaintiff in his suit averred that the land, as mentioned hereinabove, is recorded in the joint ownership and possession of the defendants. Plaintiff further averred that out of the above land, the land measuring 1-13 bighas comprised in khasra Nos. 2127, 2146, 2172 and 2173, khata/ khatauni No.718/1397 remained in the possession of the plaintiff since May, 1989 and rest of the land measuring 0-9 bighas comprised in khasra Nos. 2105,2138,2174 remained in possession of the defendants. Plaintiff further averred in the plaint that land measuring 1-13 biswas comprised in khasra Nos. 2127, 2146, 2172, 2173 is in the possession of plaintiff since 1989 and since then possession of the plaintiff is open, continuous, without any interruption and hindrance and with the notice and knowledge of the defendants and public at large and he has become owner in possession by way of adverse possession and as such, defendants have no right, title and interest over the suit land. 3. Plaintiff also averred in the plaint that he has constructed retaining wall on khasra No.2146 and 2127 and raised fruit bearing trees over the suit land after spending an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Plaintiff also averred that previously the land was Banjar and stony and plaintiff after improvements made the land cultivable. 3. Plaintiff also averred in the plaint that he has constructed retaining wall on khasra No.2146 and 2127 and raised fruit bearing trees over the suit land after spending an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Plaintiff also averred that previously the land was Banjar and stony and plaintiff after improvements made the land cultivable. Plaintiff further contended that aforesaid improvements were effected in the presence of the defendants and at no point of time, any objection was raised by them. In nutshell, the plaintiff claimed that he is in possession of the suit land for the last more than 12 years and his possession is open, peaceful, continuous and hostile with the notice and knowledge of the defendants and as such, defendants have no right to dispossess the plaintiff. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff by way of suit detailed given hereinabove, sought decree that he may be declared owner in possession of the land by way of adverse possession and defendants be restrained from causing any sort interference in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 4. Defendants by way of written statement refuted the averments contained in the plaint in toto. Defendants specifically stated that the plaintiff is son of defendant No.7, Jeetu and he is in possession of the suit land of the share of his father in the joint holding. Defendants also claimed that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in connivance with his father i.e. defendant No.7, in order to harass the other defendants, who are joint owners of the suit land. Defendants further alleged that plaintiff with a view to grab the suit property, filed present suit in connivance of his father i.e. defendant No.7. Defendants also stated that suit land is jointly owned and possessed by replying defendants No.1 to 6 and defendant No.7, i.e. father of the plaintiff. It is specifically mentioned in the written statement that the plaintiff is possessing the suit land out of joint holding under his father, and at no point of time, he has become owner by way of adverse possession. Similarly, defendants stated that retaining wall, if any, raised by the plaintiff is over the land of his father in order to protect the land and fruit bearing tress standing thereon. Similarly, defendants stated that retaining wall, if any, raised by the plaintiff is over the land of his father in order to protect the land and fruit bearing tress standing thereon. Defendants also denied that the plaintiff has made improvement over the suit land, but they have stated that plaintiff had made improvement, if any, on the joint holding. While praying for dismissal of the suit, defendants specifically stated that they raised objection against the plaintiff, who started interfering into the ownership and possession of their shares in the suit land and the plaintiff being stranger to the suit land, has no right to interfere in the suit land. 5. Record reveals that the plaintiff has not filed any replication and as such, averments contained in the written statement stood un-rebutted. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession as claimed, if so, its effect? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the prohibitory injunction prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the Court as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD. 7. Relief. 7. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, decided issues No.1 to 3 against the plaintiff, issue No.4 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and issues No. 5 and 6 were decided against the defendants. However, fact remains that suit filed by the present appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 8.9.2006, passed by learned trial Court, appellant/ plaintiff filed an appeal under Section 96 CPC in the Court of leaned District Judge, Kullu, H.P. i.e. Civil Appeal No.79 of 2006. The learned District Judge, Kullu vide impugned judgment dated 9.4.2007, dismissed the appeal preferred on behalf of the plaintiff and upheld the judgment passed by learned trial Court. In the aforesaid background, present appellant-plaintiff approached this court by way of Regular Section Appeal, praying therein for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment passed by learned Courts below. 9. The learned District Judge, Kullu vide impugned judgment dated 9.4.2007, dismissed the appeal preferred on behalf of the plaintiff and upheld the judgment passed by learned trial Court. In the aforesaid background, present appellant-plaintiff approached this court by way of Regular Section Appeal, praying therein for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment passed by learned Courts below. 9. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-- “(1) Whether both the Courts below were correct in holding that the plaintiff appellant failed to prove his title by way of adverse possession? 10. Mr. S.S. Mittal, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. S.P.Sharma, Advocate, representing the appellant, vehemently argued that impugned judgment passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable as the same are not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Mittal, further contended that bare perusal of the impugned judgments, suggest that learned District Judge, while dismissing the suit filed by the present appellant plaintiff has mis-appreciated and misconstrued the evidence on record and as such, great injustice has been caused to the present appellant-plaintiff, who has admittedly become owner in possession by way of adverse possession. Mr. Mittal, strenuously argued that both the Courts below have fallen in grave error while not appreciating the evidence in its right perspective. During arguments having been made by him, he invited the attention of the Court to the statement made by PW-1, wherein he stated that total land is measuring 2-2 bighas comprised khasra Nos. 2105, 2127, 2138, 2146, 2172, 2174, khata/khatauni No.718/ 1397 and out of this land, suit land measuring 1-13-0 bighas comprised in khasra No.2127, 2146, 2172, 2173, khata/ khatauni No. 718/1397 is in the possession of plaintiff and as such, both the Courts below committed grave illegality while concluding that the plaintiff was not able to identify the suit land, which was allegedly in his possession continuously for the last more than 12 years. Mr. Mr. Mittal, forcibly contended that PW-1, specifically stated that plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit land since 1989 and he has improved the suit land by spending Rs.50,000/- and defendants have not raised any objection, at any point of time, but despite aforesaid candid statement made on behalf of PW-1, Courts below returned erroneous findings that the plaintiff was unable to specify/identify the portion of land, qua which, he was in possession for the last more than 12 years. 11. Similarly, Mr. Mittal, invited the attention of this Court to the statements of PW-2 and PW-3, who also stated that plaintiff is in possession of the land, as described hereinabove. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Mittal, forcibly contended that factum with regard to improvement made by the plaintiff over the suit land was duly proved on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence by the plaintiff but despite that both the Courts below on very flimsy grounds rejected the suit filed by the plaintiff. Mr. Mittal, further contended that the case of the plaintiff was also proved by DW-2, Shri Jitu Ram who stated that PW-1 was in cultivating possession of the suit land since May, 1989 and his possession was open, peaceful, continuous and hostile with the notice and knowledge of the public at large and as such, both the Courts below have fallen in grave error while dismissing the suit filed by the present appellant-plaintiff and as such, present appeal deserve to be allowed by setting-aside the impugned judgment passed by both the Courts below. 12. Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate, supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. Mr. Gupta, vehemently argued that bare perusal of the impugned judgment passed by both the Courts below, suggest that same are based upon correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and as such, no interference, whatsoever, of this Court is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Mr. Gupta, vehemently argued that bare perusal of the impugned judgment passed by both the Courts below, suggest that same are based upon correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and as such, no interference, whatsoever, of this Court is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Gupta, with a view to substantiate his aforesaid arguments, invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by both the Courts below to demonstrate that each and every aspect of the matter has been dealt with very meticulously by the Courts below and as such, present appeal is not maintainable especially in view of the concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below. Mr. Gupta, strenuously argued that admittedly suit land was jointly owned and possessed by defendants No.1 to 7 and as such, plaintiff who is son of defendant No.7 by no stretch of imagination could be held to be in adverse possession of the land, which was admittedly jointly owned by his father i.e. defendant No.7. Apart from above, Mr. Gupta, stated that perusal of the evidence led on record by the plaintiff, nowhere suggest that plaintiff was able to prove on record that his possession over the suit land for the last more than 12 years was open, peaceful, continuous and hostile to the knowledge of the defendants. Mr. Gupta, forcibly contended that once it stood duly proved on record that the plaintiff is son of defendant No.7, who is co-owner of the joint property, claim put forth on behalf of the plaintiff that he has acquired status of owner by way of adverse possession, was rightly rejected by both the Courts below. Mr. Gupta, further contended that this Court has very limited power to re-appreciate the evidence when both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings on the facts as well as law. In this regard, to substantiate the aforesaid plea, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others Vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015)4 SCC 264 . 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 14. In this regard, to substantiate the aforesaid plea, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others Vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015)4 SCC 264 . 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 14. Since, plaintiff by way of suit sought declaration that he may be declared owner of the property, as described hereinabove, by way of adverse possession, this Court would make an attempt to explore answer to substantial question of law as referred above by referring to the evidence led on record by the respective parties. The case set up by the plaintiff is that he acquired the status of owner of suit land by way of adverse possession, which is in his possession for the last more than 12 years. Since, plaintiff claimed that he is in open, peaceful, continuous and hostile possession of the suit land for the last 12 years that too to the knowledge of the defendants, onus was upon him to prove that he acquired the status of owner by way of adverse possession with the flux of time by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 15. It is well settled law that onus to prove the plea of adverse possession is always on the person, who claims himself to be owner by way of adverse possession. It is incumbent upon such person to specifically establish that what was the nature of his possession. It is also necessary to prove on record that the fact of his adverse possession was in the knowledge of the real owner and merely un-interrupted possession of several years may not be sufficient to claim absolute right, title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. In the present case, as emerged from the record, plaintiff claimed that since May, 1989 he is in continuous and exclusive possession of the suit land that too to the knowledge of the defendants. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex.PA and stated that land measuring 2-2 bighas comprised in khasra Nos. 2105, 2127, 2138, 2146, 2172, 2173, 2174, khata/ khatauni No. 718/1397 situated in Phati Parli Kothi Kotkandi, Tehsil and District Kullu,H.P., is recorded in the ownership and possession of the defendants. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex.PA and stated that land measuring 2-2 bighas comprised in khasra Nos. 2105, 2127, 2138, 2146, 2172, 2173, 2174, khata/ khatauni No. 718/1397 situated in Phati Parli Kothi Kotkandi, Tehsil and District Kullu,H.P., is recorded in the ownership and possession of the defendants. He further stated that out of aforesaid land measuring 2-2 bighas, the land measuring 1-13 bighas comprised in khasra Nos. 2127, 2146, 2172, 2173 remained in possession of the plaintiff since May, 1989 and rest of the land measuring 0-9 biswas of khasra Nos. 2105, 2138, 2174 remained in the possession of the defendants. He also stated that land measuring 1-13 bighas was Banjar and stony and he after spending more than Rs.50,000/- made it cultivable. He specifically stated in his affidavit, which is tendered in evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC that defendants had full notice and knowledge regarding the possession but no objection was raised by them, at any point of time, and as such, his possession is open, continuous and hostile and public at large, without any let and hindrance and as such, he has acquired the title of owner by way of adverse possession. 16. Careful perusal of the aforesaid statement having been rendered by PW-1, though suggest that he claimed himself to be in possession of land measuring 1-13 bighas out of 2-2 bighas but it nowhere suggests that at what time he came into possession of the suit land, which is being claimed by him by way of adverse possession. In his statement, he admitted that land measuring 2-2 bighas, as described hereinabove, is recorded in the ownership and possession of the defendants, but he nowhere stated that in what circumstances he became in possession of land being claimed by him by way of adverse possession. Close scrutiny of his statement, nowhere suggests that he was able to point out specifically that from which date, he became in possession and in what circumstances, he became in possession of the suit land, which is being claimed by him by way of adverse possession. At this stage, it may be taken note of the fact that defendant No.7, who is also joint owner of the suit property, is father of the plaintiff. At this stage, it may be taken note of the fact that defendant No.7, who is also joint owner of the suit property, is father of the plaintiff. All the defendants witnesses have categorically stated, rather admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the share of the suit land belonging to defendant No.7, who is father of the plaintiff. 17. PW-2, Yan Chand, also filed affidavit by way of evidence Ex.PB, wherein he stated that plaintiff separately resides from his father and suit land is in his possession since 1989. He also stated that plaintiff made the land cultivable, which was earlier Banjar and stony after spending huge amount. He stated that plaintiff also made improvements over the suit land. PW-3, Damodar Dass filed his affidavit by way of evidence Ex.PC, wherein he deposed that he had undertaken the work of the plaintiff for breaking the stones and raising a danga and he had completed the work and received money from the plaintiff. PW-4, Gokal Chand, also filed his affidavit by way of evidence Ex.PD and stated that the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff and he is cultivating the suit land since 1989 and his possession over the land is open, peaceful, continuous and hostile and with the notice and knowledge of the defendants and public at large and 18. Close scrutiny of aforesaid plaintiff witnesses, though suggest that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land since, 1989 but none of these plaintiff witnesses including PW-1, nowhere stated that at what point of time plaintiff came into possession of the suit land. Similarly, none of the plaintiff witnesses have stated that in what manner and under what circumstances plaintiff came into possession of the suit land, which is admittedly recorded in the ownership and possession of the defendants. Hence, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment, passed by both the Courts below, where both the Courts unequivocally returned the findings that the plaintiff was unable to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that since, 1989 he is in un-interrupted possession of the suit land. Hence, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment, passed by both the Courts below, where both the Courts unequivocally returned the findings that the plaintiff was unable to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that since, 1989 he is in un-interrupted possession of the suit land. Though, plaintiff by leading aforesaid plaintiff witnesses was able to prove that he is in possession of the property but at the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that plaintiff was not able to prove the manner in which he become in possession of suit land and more particularly, no specific time, if any, has been pointed out by these plaintiff witnesses when plaintiff came into possession of this land and as such, plea of being in possession of more than 12 years deserves to be rejected out rightly in the absence of specific evidence led on record in this regard by the plaintiff. 19. On the other hand, defendant himself appeared in the witness box as DW-1 and filed his affidavit ExDW1/A by way of evidence, wherein he specifically stated that he alongwith other defendants are joint owners in possession of the suit land and cultivating the land as per their own share by way of family adjustment. He also stated that plaintiff is son of defendant No.7 and he is in possession and cultivating the share of his father in joint holding. He specifically stated that present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against defendants No. 1 to , 5 and 6 in connivance with his father defendant No.7 with a view to harass and jeopardize the rights of the defendants. DW-1, specifically stated in his evidence that plaintiff never remained in adverse possession of the suit property. He further stated that since father of the plaintiff is old person and plaintiff is only son of defendant No.7, he cultivates the land of his father defendant No.7. 20. Defendant No.7, Jeetu also appeared as DW-2 and filed his affidavit Ex.DW2/A by way of evidence, wherein he stated that suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff and he is in cultivating possession of the same since May, 1989 and his possession is open, peaceful, continuous and hostile with the notice and notice of the public at large. Defendant No.7, Jeetu also appeared as DW-2 and filed his affidavit Ex.DW2/A by way of evidence, wherein he stated that suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff and he is in cultivating possession of the same since May, 1989 and his possession is open, peaceful, continuous and hostile with the notice and notice of the public at large. He also stated that the plaintiff by way of improvements raised a danga and fruit bearing tress on the suit land by spending huge amount. But interestingly, DW-2 nowhere stated that in what capacity plaintiff came into possession of the suit land. Close scrutiny of entire statement made by him by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/A, nowhere spells out when plaintiff came in possession of the entire suit land, which was admittedly jointly owned by defendants No. 1 to 7. Though, DW-2 stated that the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff and is in cultivating possession since 1989, but in his statement, it has been nowhere stated that on which portion of the suit land plaintiff made improvements by spending huge amount of money. Since, DW-2, nowhere stated with regard to manner and circumstances under which plaintiff became in adverse possession of the land in question, version put forth by him was rightly not appreciated by the learned Courts below. This court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgments passed by the both the Courts below. 21. Close scrutiny of the evidence led on record by both the parties, nowhere suggest that the possession of the plaintiff became adverse to the defendants, at any point of time, conferring ownership upon him by way of adverse possession. Perusal of Ex.P-1 i.e. jamabandi for the year, 2001- 02, clearly shows that all the defendants are joint owners in possession of the total land measuring 2-2-0 bighas, detail whereof are given hereinabove. Since, plaintiff claimed the adverse possession only qua the land measuring 1-13-0 bighas comprised in khasra Nos. 2127, 2146, 2172, 2173, it was incumbent upon him to have the suit land identified in order to establish physical possession over it, as has been discussed in detailed. Plaintiff(PW-1) himself and none of the his witnesses including defendant No.2 have nowhere stated with regard to actual possession of plaintiff over the portion of the suit land, which is jointly owned by defendants No. 1 to 7. Plaintiff(PW-1) himself and none of the his witnesses including defendant No.2 have nowhere stated with regard to actual possession of plaintiff over the portion of the suit land, which is jointly owned by defendants No. 1 to 7. Since, plaintiff has not placed on record material evidence to demonstrate that he is in exclusive and physical possession of the land measuring 1-13-0 bighas, both the Courts rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was unable to prove his adverse possession over the suit land. Similarly, aspect of raising retaining wall as well as planting fruit bearing trees over the suit land remained unproved because none of the plaintiff witnesses have specifically stated that on which date plaintiff constructed retaining wall on the suit land and on what date he planted fruit bearing tress over the suit land. PW-3, in his cross-examination admitted that being son of defendant No.7, the plaintiff used to cultivate the land of his father. PW-4, also admitted in his cross-examination that the trees were planted by the plaintiff about 5 to 6 years back. Hence, none of the plaintiff witnesses were specific in stating the exact date of constructing the retaining wall and planting of tress. PW-4, Gokal Chand, Lamberdar specifically admitted in his cross-examination that at times defendant No.7 i.e. father of the plaintiff used to pay land revenue, which clearly suggest that plaintiff was in cultivating possession of the suit land of his father defendant No.7. Even PW-4, nowhere stated that plaintiff is in continuous possession of this suit land for a period of 12 years. Leaving everything aside, this Court was not able to lay its hand on any portion of the statements made by plaintiff witnesses, where they stated that possession of the plaintiff was open peaceful, continuous and hostile and with the notice and knowledge of the public at large. All the plaintiff witnesses simply stated that since 1989 plaintiff is in possession of the suit land but admittedly none of these witnesses have stated qua which portion of suit land, which was admittedly jointly owned by the defendants and plaintiff. 22. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. All the plaintiff witnesses simply stated that since 1989 plaintiff is in possession of the suit land but admittedly none of these witnesses have stated qua which portion of suit land, which was admittedly jointly owned by the defendants and plaintiff. 22. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India and others., (2004)10 SCC 779 , wherein it has been held that a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour and since such a person is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish necessary facts to establish his adverse possession. The relevant para-11 of the judgment is reproduced 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. 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 precario” 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 SC 1254 ; Parsinni v. Sukhi, )1993) 4 SCC 375 and D.N. Venkatarayappa Vs. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567 ). Physical fact of exclusive possession and the 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. Physical fact of exclusive possession and the 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. (See. Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma, (1996) 8 SCC 128 .” 23. This Court sees no irregularity and infirmity, if any, in the judgments passed by both the Courts below, rather, same are based upon correct appreciation of the evidence available on record. This Court is fully satisfied that both the Courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter. Since, both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings, which otherwise appear to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence, this Court has very limited jurisdiction/scope to interfere in the matter. In this regard, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant contents of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015)4 SCC 264 , herein below:- “16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs have established their right in 'A' schedule property. In the light of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the 'A' schedule property for road and that she could not have full fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to plaintiffs' right cannot be granted. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the 'A' schedule property for road and that she could not have full fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to plaintiffs' right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.” 24. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court sees no reasons to interfere in the well reasoned judgment passed by both the Courts below, which otherwise appears to be based upon correct appreciation of the evidence available on record. It is well settled law that a party claiming adverse possession must prove his possession. 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. But in the present case, as has been discussed in detailed hereinabove, neither the plaintiff himself nor other witnesses adduced by him on record specifically stated that at what point of time and in what manner, he became owner in possession of the suit land by wrongfully dispossessing the rightful owner, rather all the plaintiff witnesses have simply stated that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land for the last 12 years. Hence, this Court sees no merit in the present case and same is accordingly dismissed. Interim directions, if any, are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.