JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2006 passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2004, vide which, learned Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 06.05.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, in Civil Suit No. 116 of 1995. 2. A suit was filed by respondent/plaintiff for declaration, permanent injunction and possession to the effect that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and the defendant had no concern whatsoever with the same and the defendant be restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and further that the revenue entries showing the possession of the defendant over the suit land are bogus and null and void ab initio and not binding upon the plaintiff and are liable to be quashed and corrected. The suit was further to the effect that in case the plaintiff is not found in possession, decree for vacant possession of land detailed in prayer-A therein be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 3. Learned lower Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 06.05.2004 in the following terms:- “The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed to the effect that the plaintiff is hereby declared absolute owner of the suit land and defendant is in unauthorized possession of the same as the defendant has failed to establish his adverse possession. The revenue entry qua possession in favour of defendant in Missal Hakiyat 1982-83 Ex. P.3, is hereby declared null and void, against the factual position and not binding on the plaintiff and further the suit of the plaintiff for possession on the basis of title is hereby decreed and defendant is directed to hand over the possession of the suit land bearing Khata No.63 min, Khatoni No.232, Khasra No. 1300, measuring 13.88 Sq. Meters ‘Gairmumkin Sehan’ as per jamabandi for the year 1989-90, situated in Tika Up Mahal Gaura Mouza Bajuri, Tehsil & District Hamirpur (H.P.) to the plaintiff. Parties shall bear their own costs.” 4. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant/defendant by way of appeal, which appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.08.2006. 5. Parties shall bear their own costs.” 4. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant/defendant by way of appeal, which appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.08.2006. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants, filed the present Regular Second Appeal. Shri Dina Nath died during the pendency of the appeal. His legal heirs have been brought on record thereafter, who are the present appellants. 6. Appeal was admitted by this Court on 06.11.2008 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Courts below have decided Issue No. 5 wrongly and illegally against the settled principle relating to the law of adverse possession?” 7. The following is Issue No.5 as was framed by the learned lower Court:- “5. Whether the defendant has become owner by way of adverse possession as alleged?” 8. This issue has been decided by the learned lower Court alongwith Issues No. 1 and 2. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 10. The case of the plaintiff was that he was owner in possession of the suit land. However, at the time of settlement, the defendant at his back had got entries of possession entered in his favour in Missal Hakiyat. However, as per the plaintiff, the defendant was not at all in possession of the suit land and it was only at the time of filing of the suit that the defendant had succeeded in taking forcible possession of the same. The contention of the defendant was that he was owner in possession of the suit land since long and in fact his possession over the suit land was more than 30 years old and the said possession was hostile, continuous and uninterrupted vis-a-vis the plaintiff. Therefore, according to the defendant he had perfected the right by way of adverse possession and as per him, the entry of possession recorded in his favour in Missal Hakiyat prepared at the time of settlement, in fact depicted the correct factual position. The learned lower Court concluded that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land and defendant had taken forcible possession of the same just prior to filing of the suit. The learned lower Court concluded that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land and defendant had taken forcible possession of the same just prior to filing of the suit. The learned lower Court further held that the defendant had failed to establish his adverse possession over the suit land for the last 30 years as claimed by him. Accordingly, the learned lower Court held that the defendant could not establish his title over the suit land on the basis of adverse possession. The learned lower Court further held that the evidence led by the plaintiff demonstrates that the defendant took forcible possession of the suit land from the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. On the other hand, as per the learned lower Court, the defendant did not examine any independent witness of the locality in support of his case i.e. possession over the suit land was over 30 years old. The learned lower court further held that on one hand the defendant was claiming his possession over the suit land to be 30 years, whereas copy of jamabandi for the year 1978-1979 Ext. P-2 does not support the version of the defendant as in the said jamabandi, the possession of defendant was not recorded. It was only in the Missal Hakiyat prepared in the year 1982-1983 Ext. P-3 that the possession of the defendant stood recorded. The learned lower Court further held that had the defendant been in actual possession of the suit land as alleged by him, then to this effect entries should have been recorded in the earlier jamabandies. On these basis, the learned lower Court came to the conclusion that the entries qua the possession of the defendant in Missal Hakiyat was fictitious and fake as having no factual base. The learned lower Court further held that the defendant could not prove all the ingredients of perfecting title by way of adverse possession i.e. the possession has to be open, peaceful and hostile to the true owner. It further held that even if it is presumed that at the time of settlement in the year 1981- 1982, defendant was in possession of the suit land, then in the absence of hostile animus, possession of the defendant, cannot be termed as hostile and adverse possession. It further held that even if it is presumed that at the time of settlement in the year 1981- 1982, defendant was in possession of the suit land, then in the absence of hostile animus, possession of the defendant, cannot be termed as hostile and adverse possession. The learned lower court further held that as per the record, suit land was joint between several co-sharers and the plaintiff has purchased the undivided share. Partition took place after the year 1990 and it was completed before the preparation of jamabandi for the year 1994-1995 Ext. P-4. Mutation No. 306 dated 12.08.1991 was sanctioned qua the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and this fact was not specifically disputed by the defendant also in his written statement. On these basis, the learned lower Court held that it was established that prior to 1990-1991 the suit land was joint between several co-sharers including the plaintiff. So the defendant was claiming adverse possession from the date when the suit land was joint between several co-sharers, which warranted that in order to get the relief of title on the basis of adverse possession, the defendant ought to have filed separate suit against all the co-sharers of the suit land because from the initial stage of the alleged adverse possession, the plaintiff was not absolute owner of the suit land. On the basis of these findings, the learned lower Court decreed the suit in terms already stated above. 11. The learned Appellate Court in appeal held that in order to succeed on the plea of adverse possession several facts have to be stated and substantiated and burden of proving of all the elements of adverse possession was on the defendant, who was setting up such title. The learned Appellate Court further held that the defendant in order to succeed had to allege and establish that his possession was actual, adverse, exclusive, peaceful, continuous, un-broken, open, notorious, visible, distinct, unequivocal and hostile. The defendant was further bound to prove the date of commencement and the extent of his adverse possession but all these materials were lacking in the case put-forth by the defendant, who had only stated that he was coming in possession of the suit land for the last 30 years. The defendant was further bound to prove the date of commencement and the extent of his adverse possession but all these materials were lacking in the case put-forth by the defendant, who had only stated that he was coming in possession of the suit land for the last 30 years. The learned Appellate Court has further held that the defendant was recorded as ‘Kabiz’ over the suit land but he came to be recorded as such for the first time during the settlement operation, which took place in the year 1982-1983 and earlier to that, the defendant was never recorded in possession of the suit land in any capacity and not even ‘Kabiz’. The defendant could not explain as to how he came to be recorded in possession of the suit land. The learned Appellate Court has further held that though the defendant was again recorded as ‘Kabiz’ as per jamabandi Ext. P-1 for the year 1989-1990 but it appears that these entries were subsequently corrected because in the jamabandi for the year 1994-1995 Ext. P-4, the plaintiff had been shown as owner in possession of the suit land and these entries were never challenged by the defendant. Accordingly, the learned Appellate Court held that there was no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Court and the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant. 12. Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Advocate, has argued that the findings arrived at by both the Courts below on Issue No.5 were untenable in law. As per him, the defendant had clearly and categorically established that he was in possession of the suit land for the last 30 years at the time of filing of the suit and that he had perfected his title by way of adverse possession. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent has vehemently argued that there was no infirmity or perversity with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and the findings which have been arrived at by the learned lower Court on Issue No.5 were duly substantiated from the records of the case and further the learned Appellate Court also had rightly upheld the findings of the learned lower Court. According to him, the defendant was stranger as far as the suit land is concerned and taking advantage of the wrong entries of possession in his favour recorded in the Missal Hakiyat, he forcibly took possession of the suit land at the time of filing of the suit only. 13. This Court called upon learned counsel for the appellant to demonstrate from records as to since when the defendant was in possession of the suit land as per his claim and what was the material on record to substantiate and justify that he has perfected his title of adverse possession. However, the learned counsel could not satisfy the query of this Court on the basis of records. 14. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the judgments passed by the Courts below as well as after perusing the record of the case, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present appeal. Both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was owner of the suit land and the entries qua the possession over the same of the defendant were erroneous. The defendant had miserably failed to prove that he was in actual possession of the suit land for more than 30 years as alleged and that he had perfected his title by way of adverse possession by demonstrating that his possession was open, peaceful and hostile as to the true owner. The Courts below have not decided Issue No.5 wrongly or illegally or against the settled principles pertaining to the law of adverse possession. 15. In my considered view, the settled principles pertaining to the law of adverse possession have to be applied on the facts of each case. Further, a plea of adverse possession is mixed question of law and fact. The law governing adverse possession will come into picture only if a party claiming adverse possession on facts, is able to demonstrate that this possession is open, peaceful, hostile and the same was adverse to the true owner more than 12 years prior to the filing of the suit. 16. The averments made in the written statement are vague and general in nature. 16. The averments made in the written statement are vague and general in nature. The defendant has only mentioned that he is owner in possession of the land since last more than period prescribed by law to raise the plea of adverse possession and has acquired the status of owner of the land in suit, of which, he was already recorded in possession. Besides this, he has stated in general terms that his possession is hostile qua the owner right and open to the knowledge of every one including the plaintiff who had no occasion to enter upon the suit land for the last more than 12 years and his possession was not temporary but continuous, un-interrupted, notorious, hostile, established and open to action being trespasser qua the plaintiff. Besides these general averments, nothing has been produced on record to substantiate his contentions. 17. The theory of adverse possession is that an adverse possession allows a trespasser, a person guilty of tort or even crime in the eyes of law to gain legally title of land, which he has illegally possessed for 12 years. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chatti Konati Rao and others Vs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 316, has held: “12. ………… What is adverse possession, on whom the burden of proof lie, the approach of the court towards such plea etc. have been the subject matter of decision in a large number of cases. In the case of T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, it has been held that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner and the classical requirement of acquisition of title by adverse possession is that such possessions are in denial of the true owner's title. Relevant passage of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows: (SCC p. 577, para 20) "20. It is well-recognised proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner's title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former's hostile action." 13. What facts are required to prove adverse possession have succinctly been enunciated by this Court in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India and Ors. It has also been observed 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. SCC para 11 of the judgment which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows : (SCC p. 785) "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. (S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina, Parsinni v. Sukhi and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina, Parsinni v. Sukhi and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka. 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. (Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr.) v. Raj Kumari Sharma.)” 14. In view of the several authorities of this Court, few whereof have been referred above, what can safely be said that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. It means hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The possession must be open and hostile enough so that it is known by the parties interested in the property. The plaintiff is bound to prove his title as also possession within 12 years and once the plaintiff proves his title, the burden shifts on the defendant to establish that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. Claim by adverse possession has two basic elements i.e. the possession of the defendant should be adverse to the plaintiff and the defendant must continue to remain in possession for a period of 12 years thereafter. 15. Animus possidendi as is well known a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. Claim by adverse possession has two basic elements i.e. the possession of the defendant should be adverse to the plaintiff and the defendant must continue to remain in possession for a period of 12 years thereafter. 15. Animus possidendi as is well known a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. Mere possession does not ripen into possessory title until possessor holds property adverse to the title of the true owner for the said purpose. The person who claims adverse possession is required to establish the date on which he came in possession, nature of possession, the factum of possession, knowledge to the true owner, duration of possession and possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour as he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner and, hence, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish adverse possession. The courts always take unkind view towards statutes of limitation overriding property rights. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law.” 19. Keeping these principles in mind and coming back to the facts of the present case, I am of the considered view that the appellant has miserably failed to demonstrate that he was either in possession of the suit land for more than 12 years as alleged and that his alleged possession was open, peaceful and hostile as against the true owner. The findings arrived at qua Issue No.5 by the learned lower Court are correct and based on the appreciation of the facts of the case and evidence on record. The conclusions arrived at even in appeal by the learned Appellate Court are borne out from the record and are not perverse. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 20. In view of the above discussion, accordingly, I do not see any reason to interfere in the well reasoned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.