JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant/defendant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla, in Civil Appeal No. 14-S/13 of 2006, dated 19.06.2007, vide which, learned Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by respondent/plaintiff, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, whereby learned trial Court i.e. learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Chopal, vide its judgment and decree dated 30.12.2005 passed in Civil Suit No. 33/I of 2005 had dismissed the suit filed by the present respondent/plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that she was owner in possession of the suit land comprised in Khewat No. 42/43, Khatauni No. 61, Khasra No. Kitta 3, measuring 0-39-47 hectares, situated in chak Kanhal, Pargana Peontra, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’), which land stood purchased by her from one Kewal Ram, son of Goru Ram about three years back and defendant was stranger to the suit land and causing interference over the suit land without any right, title and interest by cutting grass or by some other manner. As per plaintiff, defendant alongwith his labourers, on 02.10.2005, at about 9:00 a.m. entered upon the suit land and started cutting grass from the same and she requested the defendant not to cut and remove grass from the suit land, however, defendant paid no heed. On this, plaintiff called respectable persons of the village on the spot and it was only thereafter that defendant alongwith his labourers stopped cutting grass over the suit land. Further as per plaintiff, while departing from the suit land, defendant threatened to cut grass from the suit land, therefore, plaintiff filed the suit praying that defendant be permanently restrained from causing interference over the suit land. 3. The suit so filed by the plaintiff was contested by the defendant who took the stand in the written statement that plaintiff was not in possession over the suit land and entries in revenue record were illegal, wrong and not binding upon the defendant. As per defendant, possession over the suit land had not been delivered to the plaintiff at the time of sale deed as was alleged in the plaint. As per defendant, possession over the suit land had not been delivered to the plaintiff at the time of sale deed as was alleged in the plaint. According to defendant, Goru Ram in fact never cultivated the suit land which was granted to him by way of ‘nataur’ and it was he who was in possession of the suit land from the time of his father for more than 45 years and his possession over the suit land which was in the shape of ‘ghasni’ was peaceful, hostile, adverse and continuous and had matured into ownership. According to defendant, original owner never resided in the chak concerned and there were fodder trees over the suit land which had been used by defendant without any interference and he had also planted some lemon trees over the suit land. It was further mentioned in the written statement that plaintiff was out of possession and with a motive to recover the possession, the present suit was filed by her. On these bases, defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues. “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct? OPD. 5. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD. 6. Relief.” 5. On the basis of evidence led by the parties both ocular as well as documentary in support of their respective cases, the issues so framed were answered by the learned trial Court as under. “Issue No.1 : No. Issue No.2 : No. Issue No.3 : No. Issue No.4 : No. Issue No.5 : Yes. Issue No. 6 (Relief) : Suit of the plaintiff dismissed vide operative part of the judgment.” 6. Learned trial Court while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff held that plaintiff was a resident of Khanag and was residing at a distance of around 2 ½ kilometers from the suit land. Issue No. 6 (Relief) : Suit of the plaintiff dismissed vide operative part of the judgment.” 6. Learned trial Court while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff held that plaintiff was a resident of Khanag and was residing at a distance of around 2 ½ kilometers from the suit land. Learned trial Court further held that entries in revenue records reflecting plaintiff as owner in possession stood totally rebutted from the oral evidence of the defendant which firmly established the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendant. Learned trial Court further held that PW2 Sher Singh though had stated about the possession of plaintiff over the suit land but had shown his ignorance to all other relevant suggestions put to him in the cross examination. Learned trial Court also held that though it was admitted by the plaintiff as PW1 that there were 15 lemon trees standing over the suit land, however, PW-2 Sher Singh feigned ignorance about this fact in his cross examination, which demonstrated that PW2 was not conversant with the factual situation over the spot. Learned trial Court further held that defendant’s witnesses had first hand knowledge about the location of the disputed land and the same strengthens the plea of adverse possession set up by the defendant. On these bases, it was held by learned trial Court that no relief of permanent prohibitory injunction could be granted in favour of plaintiff as defendant had succeeded in proving that he had become owner in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. It was also held by learned trail Court that adverse inference was to be drawn against the plaintiff for not producing Goru Ram or his son Kewal Ram as witnesses in the Court as they were the best persons to throw light qua the factum of possession over the suit property. 7. In appeal, the findings so returned by learned trial Court were set aside by learned Appellate Court. While setting aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, it was held by learned Appellate Court that plaintiff was recorded owner of the suit land by virtue of purchase i.e. sale deed Ext. PC. Learned Appellate Court also held that jamabandi for the year 2001-02, Ext. PA also reflected plaintiff to be owner of the suit land. Learned Appellate Court further held that Ext. PC. Learned Appellate Court also held that jamabandi for the year 2001-02, Ext. PA also reflected plaintiff to be owner of the suit land. Learned Appellate Court further held that Ext. PB which was copy of jamabandi for the year 1988-89 reflected that earlier possession of the suit land was with the predecessor-in-title of plaintiff, namely, Goru Ram. Learned Appellate Court also held that records demonstrated that suit land was originally allotted to Goru Ram as a landless person and, thereafter, he had sold it to the plaintiff. Learned Appellate Court went on to hold that from the record it is clear that there were few lemon trees standing over the suit land but plaintiff asserted that she had planted these trees, whereas, defendant Hari Singh claimed that lemons trees were planted by him. Learned Appellate Court further held that Mast Ram who entered the witness box as DW2 was silent about any lemon trees growing over the suit land. Learned Appellate Court further held that similar was the case with the testimony of DW3 Hari Dass. Learned Appellate Court also held that DW4 had also not stated that lemon trees over the suit land were in fact grown by the defendant. It was further held by the learned Appellate Court that the main thrust of statement of defendant’s witnesses was that the suit land was a ‘Ghasni’ and ‘Banjar’ land and defendant used to cut and remove grass from the same. Learned Appellate Court went on to hold that even if said evidence was taken to be correct on its face value, it does not mean that the defendant had acquired ownership qua the suit land by way of adverse possession. Learned Appellant Court held that in fact cutting and removing grass from a ‘ghasni’ amounts to occasional interference in the suit land by a person who is not its owner and same cannot be termed to be continuous possession nor it was the notice to the plaintiff that such stranger was adversely occupying the suit land. Learned Appellant Court held that in fact cutting and removing grass from a ‘ghasni’ amounts to occasional interference in the suit land by a person who is not its owner and same cannot be termed to be continuous possession nor it was the notice to the plaintiff that such stranger was adversely occupying the suit land. Learned Appellate Court further held that occasional and intermittent interference by defendant over the suit land will not clothe him with title over the suit land by way of adverse possession, but on this point, learned trial Court had taken a wholly and erroneous view by declaring the defendant as in possession of suit land as having become its owner by way of adverse possession. On these bases, learned Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from causing interference over the suit land in any manner. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendant has filed the present appeal which was admitted by this Court on 18.03.2008 on the following substantial questions of law. “1. Whether District Judge below has failed in error by adjudicating that the appellant/defendant’s possession is not adverse while at the same time observing that cutting and removing grass from the suit land by a person who is not its owner, is not a sufficient notice to the actual owner. 2. Whether the plantation of lemon trees of fruit bearing age in the suit land is not sufficient for hostile, notorious and exclusive possession which the owner could perceive. 3. Whether the suit for injunction was maintainable in absence of proper specification/Khasra Nos. and that too in view of the fact when the possession is with the present appellant/defendant.” 9. The factum of suit land having been purchased by Narbada Devi, the present respondent, from Kewal Ram is not in dispute. Whereas plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that she was owner in possession over the suit property and that defendant was causing unlawful interference over the same without any reason whatsoever, the stand of the defendant was that the suit land was in fact in his possession and neither Kewal Ram nor the plaintiff were actually in the physical possession over the suit land. According to the defendant, he had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. 10. Before dealing with substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2, I will deal with substantial question of law No. 3. Substantial Question of Law No. 3: Whether the suit for injunction was maintainable in absence of proper specification/Khasra Nos. and that too in view of the fact when the possession is with the present appellant/defendant.” 11. A perusal of the issues framed for the purpose of adjudication by learned trial Court demonstrate that there was no issue framed to the effect that the suit was not maintainable in the absence of proper specifications/khasra numbers as the possession thereof was with the defendant. In fact, a perusal of the written statement so filed by the defendant demonstrates that no such objection has been taken by him even in the written statement. There is no objection to the effect that suit was not maintainable in the absence of proper specifications/identification of the suit land. In this view of the matter, in my considered view, this substantial question of law is totally misconceived and it does not arise either from the pleadings or from the adjudications which have been returned on the pleadings by the learned Courts below. This substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Substantial Questions of Law No. 1 and 2: 1. Whether District Judge below has failed in error by adjudicating that the appellant/defendant’s possession is not adverse while at the same time observing that cutting and removing grass from the suit land by a person who is not its owner, is not a sufficient notice to the actual owner. 2. Whether the plantation of lemon trees of fruit bearing age in the suit land is not sufficient for hostile, notorious and exclusive possession which the owner could perceive. 12. 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. 13. 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. 13. 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-recognized 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. 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. 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. (See 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. (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. 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.” 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf versus Government of India and Others, (2004) 10 Supreme Court Cases 779 has held as under. “In the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf versus Government of India and Others, (2004) 10 Supreme Court Cases 779 has held as under. “In the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Nonuse 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 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, 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 true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. [Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma.] 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in MD Mohammad Ali (Dead) by L.Rs. Versus Jagdish Kalita and Others, (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 271 has held as under. “Long and continuous possession by itself, it is trite, would not constitute adverse possession. [Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma.] 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in MD Mohammad Ali (Dead) by L.Rs. Versus Jagdish Kalita and Others, (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 271 has held as under. “Long and continuous possession by itself, it is trite, would not constitute adverse possession. Even non-participation in the rent and profits of the land to a co-sharer does not amount to ouster so as to give title by prescription. A co-sharer, as is well settled, becomes a constructive trustee of other co-sharer and the right of the appellant and/or his predecessors in interest would, thus, be deemed to be protected by the trustee. As noticed hereinbefore, the respondents in their written statement raised a plea of adverse possession only against the third set of the defendants. A plea of adverse possession set up by the respondents, as reproduced hereinbefore, do not meet the requirements of law also in proving ouster of a co-sharer. But in the event, the heirs and legal representatives of Gayaram Kalita and Kashiram Kalita partitioned their properties by meets and bounds, they would cease to be co-sharers in which event a plea of adverse possession as contra distinguished from the plea of ouster could be raised. The courts in a given situation may on reading of the written statement in its entirety come to the conclusion that a proper plea of adverse possession has been raised if requisite allegations therefor exist. In the event the plaintiff proves his title, he need not prove that he was in possession within 12 years from the date of filing of suit. If he fails to prove his title, the suit fails. By reason of Limitation Act, 1963 the legal position as was obtaining under the old Act underwent a change. In a suit governed by Art. 65 of the 1963 Limitation Act, the plaintiff will succeed if he proves his title and it would no longer be necessary for him to prove, unlike in a suit governed by Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, that he was in possession within 12 years preceding the filing of the suit. On the contrary, it would be for the defendant so to prove if he wants to defeat the plaintiff's claim to establish his title by adverse possession. For the purpose of proving adverse possession/ ouster the defendant must also prove animus possidendi.” 16. On the contrary, it would be for the defendant so to prove if he wants to defeat the plaintiff's claim to establish his title by adverse possession. For the purpose of proving adverse possession/ ouster the defendant must also prove animus possidendi.” 16. Keeping aforesaid principles in mind, now this Court has to see as to whether the appellant/defendant was able to satisfy ingredients of adverse possession or not and whether learned Appellate Court has erred in holding that the appellant/defendant had failed to prove that he had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. 17. In this regard I will first revert to the averments made in the written statement by the defendant. It is mentioned in the written statement that defendant is in possession of the suit land from the time of his father for more than 45 years and that original owner never resided in the chak concerned and that the suit land was in the shape of ‘ghasni’ and defendant was preserving and cutting grass from the same and feeding his cattle in winter season and that his possession over the suit land was open, peaceful, hostile and adverse to the owner. Now incidentally, though it has been mentioned in the written statement that defendant was in possession of the suit land for more than 45 years but it is not stated therein as to from which date his possession over the suit land had become adverse. Not only this, his entire case is that he used to preserve and cut grass over the suit land and he also used to feed his cattle over the suit land in winter season. Learned Appellate Court held that occasional and intermittent interference will not clothe the defendant with title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf versus Government of India and Others, (2004) 10 Supreme Court Cases 779 has categorically held that in the eyes of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of the 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. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won’t affect his title. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that 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. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that such possession has to be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. Now when we revert to the facts of the present case, records demonstrate that defendant has not been able to prove that from what date he came in possession over the suit land and what was the nature of his possession. All that he says is that he is in possession over the suit land for the last more than 45 years and that he was preserving and cutting grass from the suit land. Defendant has not produced any evidence from which it could be inferred that even if it is assumed that he was in possession over the suit land, the same was in the knowledge of the other party i.e. the true owner of the land. Defendant has miserably failed to prove since how long was he in possession of the suit land and further that his possession was open and undisturbed. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that as a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour and 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. This is more so when there is conflicting evidence on record as it is also the case of the plaintiff that it is she who has grown lemon trees etc. over the suit land and is in possession thereof. Besides this, in my considered view, it is not the factum of lemon trees growing over the suit land which would prove as to whether possession of the defendant was adverse or not. over the suit land and is in possession thereof. Besides this, in my considered view, it is not the factum of lemon trees growing over the suit land which would prove as to whether possession of the defendant was adverse or not. The said factum could have been proved by defendant only by expressly demonstrating the ingredients which are necessary to prove adverse possession, as have been culled out by Hon’ble Supreme Court which I have already mentioned above. 18. Therefore, as in the present case, the appellant/defendant has miserably failed to prove the necessary ingredients to establish that he had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, there is no infirmity with the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court, which while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court held that defendant had failed to prove that he had become owner in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. These substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 19. Therefore, while upholding the judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 14-S/13 of 2006, dated 19.06.2007, the present appeal is dismissed with cost, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.