JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Instant appeal has been field against judgment and decree dated 1.4.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No. 3/2000 RBT No. 227/07/2K, affirming judgment and decree dated 22.11.1999 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Una, in Civil Suit No. 172 of 1989, whereby suit for possession filed by the respondent-plaintiff (herein after, =plaintiff') was decreed holding him to be entitled to portion denoted by letters ACF in Site Plan Ext. P-1, by demolition of structure /shop raised on it. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession stating therein that he is owner of land measuring 0-05-42 comprising Khewat No. 110 min, Khatauni no. 200 min, Khasra No. 873 (herein after, =suit land') as entered in the Misal Hakiat for the year 1986-87 situate at Village Charatgarh, Tehsil & District Una and the land marked by letters ABCDEF in the site is part of the suit land. It is further averred that about six months ago, appellant-defendant No.1 and respondent (herein after, =defendants') have raised construction over the suit land despite the objections of the plaintiff. Plaintiff asked defendants to remove the super-structure illegally raised over the suit land and to handover vacant possession of the same to him. Defendants refused to do so and as such they are threatening to interfere and to get the electric line laid through the land of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff praying for decree of possession of suit land by removing super-structure and also for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 3. Defendant, by way of written statement, refuted the claim put forth by the plaintiff and stated that site marked by letters ABCDF is not part of the suit land, rather same is part of land of the defendant. Defendant further claimed that he has constructed four shops on Khasra No. 812 owned and possessed by the defendants alongwith other, whereupon, plaintiff has no right, title or interest. The construction was about 15 years old. It is further pleaded that in case construction is found on the suit land, defendants have become owners by way of adverse possession. Defendant further claimed that he has constructed four shops on Khasra No. 812 owned and possessed by the defendants alongwith other, whereupon, plaintiff has no right, title or interest. The construction was about 15 years old. It is further pleaded that in case construction is found on the suit land, defendants have become owners by way of adverse possession. Further objection was taken that the plaintiff was estopped to file the suit due to his act and conduct. Defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Learned trial Court framed following issues for determination: ?1. Whether the land denoted by letters ABCDEF is part of Khasra No. 873, if so whether this Khasra is owned and possessed by the plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether the defendants have become owner of the land in suit by way of adverse possession as alleged.? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped for filing the suit by his act and conduct? OPD 4. Whether the suit is valued properly for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action? OPP 6. Relief.? 5. Vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.1999, learned Senior Sub Judge, Una decreed the suit of the plaintiff and held him entitled to possession of land as denoted by letters ACF in Site Plan, Ext. P-1 by demolition of structure/ shop raised over it by the defendants and further held that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the said land. Defendants feeling aggrieved filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, who also dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 1.4.2008, upholding the judgment of the learned trial Court. Hence, this regular second appeal. 6. The regular second appeal was admitted on 7.7.2008, on the following substantial questions of law: ?1. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below solely basing the same on the report of the Local Commissioner DW-2 stand vitiated on account of the fact that Ld. Local Commissioner having acted contrary to the instructions issued for the purpose by Financial Commissioner and so also the same are available in the H.P. High Court Rules and Orders? 2. Whether both the Courts below misread and mis-appreciated the report of the Local Commissioner and oral evidence adduced by the parties with specific reference to Ext. P-1, thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees?? 7. 2. Whether both the Courts below misread and mis-appreciated the report of the Local Commissioner and oral evidence adduced by the parties with specific reference to Ext. P-1, thereby vitiating the impugned judgments and decrees?? 7. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate vehemently argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are not based on correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, as such, same deserve to be set aside being unsustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Sharma, further contended that the Courts below while holding plaintiff entitled to possession of land denoted in the site plan, Ext. P-1, miserably failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its right perspective, as a result of which, great injustice has been caused to the plaintiff. Defendants have admittedly raised construction over their part of land. Mr. Sharma, strenuously argued that if report of the local commissioner is perused, it suggests that same is not executable and the relief prayed for by the plaintiff could not be granted on the basis of same. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, he invited attention of the Court to the report submitted by the local commissioner, to demonstrate that no definite conclusion could have been drawn by the learned Courts below on the basis of report that the defendants have encroached upon the land of the plaintiff by construction over the same. He also invited attention of the Court to the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties to demonstrate that at no point of time, plaintiff was able to prove on record that defendants encroached upon the portion of his land rather, there was overwhelming evidence led on record by the defendants suggesting of the fact that shops were constructed on the land owned and possessed by the defendants. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Sharma, forcefully contended that both the Courts below very conveniently ignored the fact that with the efflux of time, defendants have acquired title by way of adverse possession. In view of this, defendants prayed for dismissal of suit after setting aside judgments and decrees passed by both learned Courts below, which otherwise also are not based on correct appreciation of evidence. 8. Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. In view of this, defendants prayed for dismissal of suit after setting aside judgments and decrees passed by both learned Courts below, which otherwise also are not based on correct appreciation of evidence. 8. Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Shray Sharma, Advocate contended that bare perusal of judgment passed by both the learned Courts below clearly suggests that the Courts below while decreeing the suit have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and there is no scope for interference by this Court, whatsoever, especially in view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned Courts. Mr. Gautam, while referring to the pleadings, especially, written statement filed by the defendants, forcefully contended that there is clear cut admission on the part of the defendants that they have encroached upon the land by raising construction/shop over the same. In this regard, he invited attention of the Court to specific portion of written statement, wherein defendants have stated that in case construction raised by them is found over the suit land, in that eventuality, they have acquired title by way of adverse possession. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Gautam, forcefully contended that in view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, this Court has very limited jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence adduced on record. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. 10. Since all the substantial questions of law are interconnected, as such same are being taken up together to avoid repetition of evidence. 11. During the proceedings of the case, this Court, solely with a view to explore answer to aforesaid substantial questions of law, perused entire evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led on record by the respective parties, perusal whereof clearly suggests that the plaintiff while leading cogent and trustworthy evidence successfully proved on record that the defendants encroached upon the portion of land as denoted by letters, ACF in the site plan, Ext. P-1 by raising construction. It is undisputed that the plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 873 whereas defendants are owners-in-possession of Khasra No. 812 and both the lands are adjoining to each other. P-1 by raising construction. It is undisputed that the plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 873 whereas defendants are owners-in-possession of Khasra No. 812 and both the lands are adjoining to each other. Since plaintiff specifically alleged that the defendants encroached upon particular portion of his land by raising construction, court below, in view of the fact that there was boundary dispute, appointed Shri Vidya Rattan, Assistant Settlement Officer (DW-2) as local commissioner to demarcate the land to ascertain the encroachment by defendants, if any, over the suit land. Perusal of demarcation report, Ext. DW-2/A submitted by local commissioner, clearly suggests that Khasra No. 812/2 as shown in the site plan Ext. P-1 as ACF is part of land bearing Khasra no. 873. Objections were filed to the report by the defendants in the trial Court, which were considered by the trial Court at the time of final decision of the case. 12. DW-2 Vidya Rattan in his statement deposed that he was appointed as local commissioner. He conducted the demarcation as per the instructions of Financial Commissioners and High Court Rules and Orders. He further stated that he conducted demarcation after fixing three permanent points and thereafter furnished report, Ext. DW-2/A. In cross-examination, he stated that the Karukaans of Khasra No. 873 and 812 towards Western side have been corrected vide mutation No. 166 dated 21.4.1995 by the orders of the Settlement Officer. It emerges from the record that objections were filed to the report filed by local commissioner and the same were considered by the trial Court at the time of final decision of the case. Defendants, by way of objections opposed the report of the local commissioner by stating that there is no Khasra No. 711 as stated by the local commissioner in para-V of the report. Defendants further claimed that Khasra No. 711 has been shown by the local commissioner in the Tatima attached with his report and being so the report was not genuine. However, perusal of statement of the local commissioner in the Court suggests that Khasra No. 711 has been written by mistake and factually it was Khasra No. 771 and this fact has been explained by the local commissioner in his statement. However, perusal of statement of the local commissioner in the Court suggests that Khasra No. 711 has been written by mistake and factually it was Khasra No. 771 and this fact has been explained by the local commissioner in his statement. Another objection raised by the defendants was that local commissioner has only shown portion ACF to be part of Khasra No. 873, whereas his report is silent qua portion FCD, as shown in the site plan, Ext. P-1.This Court with a view to ascertain the correctness of aforesaid submission having been made by the learned Counsel for the defendant (s) perused the report of local commissioner, Ext. DW-2/A, perusal whereof clearly suggests that the local commissioner being a revenue expert, demarcated the land of the parties on the basis of latest revenue record and prepared Tatima alongwith his report, showing particular portion i.e. encroached portion as 812/2 marked by letters, ACF, in the site plan, Ext. P-1. If the site plan furnished by the plaintiff with the plaint is perused juxtaposing Tatima furnished by the local commissioner alongwith report, it clearly emerges that the land denoted by letter ACF in site plan Ext. P-1 is portion of land bearing Khasra No. 873 and as such local commissioner has rightly depicted portion, ACF, as encroached portion. 13. Local Commissioner in his report has specifically mentioned that after measurement of land of both the parties, he has come to the conclusion that defendants have encroached upon the portion marked by letters ACF shown in the site plan, Ext. P-1. If the land bearing Khasra No. 812/2 marked by ACF, as described in Ext. P-1 is portion of land bearing Khasra No. 873, then land reflected in Ext. P-1 by letters FCD automatically becomes part of Khasra No. 873, owned and possessed by the plaintiff, as such, there is no error as alleged by the defendants, in the report submitted by local commissioner. Record, nowhere suggests that any counter report was filed by the defendants to controvert the report of the local commissioner appointed by the Court. Otherwise also, plaintiff, while appearing as PW-1 categorically deposed that he is owner of Khasra No. 873 and land of the defendants is situate towards North side of the suit land. He specifically stated that defendants constructed shop about 5-6 months after filing of the suit. Defendants encroached upon the 4 Marla of land. Otherwise also, plaintiff, while appearing as PW-1 categorically deposed that he is owner of Khasra No. 873 and land of the defendants is situate towards North side of the suit land. He specifically stated that defendants constructed shop about 5-6 months after filing of the suit. Defendants encroached upon the 4 Marla of land. Defendants, by way of written statement, admitted that they have constructed four shops over the land in Khasra No. 812/2, owned and possessed by him, whereas in his statement as DW-4, he stated that he has constructed five shops, out of which four shops are given on rent and in one shop he has installed flour mill, meaning thereby that the plaintiff has rightly stated that defendants forcibly raised construction over the land in the shape of fifth shop during the pendency of suit. 14. Similarly, perusal of document, Ext. P-2, copy of missal hakiat for the year 1986-87 pertaining to the land bearing Khasra No. 873 clearly suggests that the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1, while appearing as DW-1 stated that he is owner of Khasra No. 812 and plaintiff is owner of Khasra No. 873 and these Khasra numbers are adjoining to each other and he stated that he has no concern with Khasra No. 873. He further stated that he has not raised any construction over the land. Since he admitted specifically that Khasra No. 873 is owned and possessed by the plaintiff, there is no dispute, if any, with regard to ownership of the plaintiff as claimed by him in the plaint. At the cost of repetition, it can be stated that the defendants while filing written statement to the suit have, at the first instance, claimed that they have raised four shops over his land bearing Khasra no. 812 but in his statement before the Court, he categorically stated that he has constructed five shops on the land, which was constructed about 20-22 years ago but this Court after perusing pleadings of the parties available on record, specifically written statement filed by the defendants, has every reason to conclude that fifth shop as claimed by the plaintiff was constructed during the pendency of the suit. 15. DW-2 Vidya Rattan, Local Commissioner has clearly proved on record that the land as described in site plan, Ext. P-1 is encroached by the defendants. 15. DW-2 Vidya Rattan, Local Commissioner has clearly proved on record that the land as described in site plan, Ext. P-1 is encroached by the defendants. Hence, this Court, after perusing evidence, be it ocular or documentary, in its entirety, has no hesitation to conclude that both the learned Courts below rightly arrived at conclusion that the defendants have encroached upon the portion of land as denoted by letters, ACF by raising construction over the same. This court has no hesitation to conclude that there is overwhelming evidence on record suggestive of the fact that the plaintiff is owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 873 and defendant without there being any right, title or interest, whatsoever, raised construction over the portion of the suit land, marked by letters, ACF, as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below and same deserve to be upheld. Since this Court, while examining evidence had occasion to peruse report of local commissioner Vidya Rattan DW- 2, it can be safely stated that local commissioner carried out demarcation strictly in accordance with High Court Rules and Orders and instructions of the Financial Commissioner. There is no illegality or infirmity in the report submitted by local commissioner, Ext. DW-2/A. 16. Similarly, this Court, after perusing entire evidence on record, sees, no force, much less substantial force, in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the defendant (s). Courts below have correctly appreciated evidence, be it ocular or documentary, adduced by the parties with specific reference to Ext. P-1, rather this Court, after perusing the same, is of the view that there is no error in the report of the local commissioner, as such same was rightly relied by the learned Courts below while decreeing the suit. 17. Now there is no specific averments with regard to timing and circumstances under which, appellant/defendant became owner by way of adverse possession, nor there is any original evidence led on record that defendants acquired the status of owner by way of adverse possession. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. In this regard, 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. 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. 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 .? 18. Hence, the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 19. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff also stated that this Court has limited scope for re-appreciation of evidence in view of concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below. 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?s case supra, wherein the Court has held as under:- ?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. 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.? 20. Consequently, in view of aforesaid discussion, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and same is dismissed. Pending applications are also disposed of. 20. Consequently, in view of aforesaid discussion, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and same is dismissed. Pending applications are also disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are also vacated.