JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant Regular Second Appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment and decree dated 30th November, 2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 47-I/XII/2011, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Indora, District Kangra, H.P. on 23.06.2011 in Civil Suit No. 96 of 2006 has been affirmed. 2. Original suit No. 96 of 2006 was filed by original plaintiff (respondent herein) in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Indora, District Kangra, H.P., against the original defendant Sh. Keshav Singh (predecessor-in-interest of appellants herein) inter-alia, seeking a decree of possession in respect of land comprised in Khata No. 114 min, Khatauni No. 520, Khasra No. 1245, measuring 0-08-26 hectares situated in Mohal and Mauja Indpur, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. 3. Parties hereafter shall be referred by the same status as they held before the learned trial Court. 4. The plaintiff claimed himself to be co-owner of suit land. It was alleged that defendant had wrongly and forcibly occupied the suit land in December, 1996 at the back of plaintiff. The defendant was alleged to be a trespasser and encroacher and accordingly a decree for possession was claimed. 5. The defendant claimed his possession over the suit land since June, 1976. As per defendant, he was a co-owner of the suit land and in alternative, the defendant claimed to have perfected title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. The defendant also claimed to have planted mango trees on the suit land, which at the time of putting up defence were stated to be more than 25 years of age. 6. The learned trial Court framed the following issues on 27.04.2007:- 1. Whether the plaintiff alongwith other co-sharers is owner of the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the revenue record reflecting the defendant in possession over the suit land is wrong and procured in connivance with the settlement staff, as alleged? -OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession over the suit land against the defendant, as prayed? OPP. 4. Whether the defendant is in possession of the suit land since June, 1976, as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD 6. -OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession over the suit land against the defendant, as prayed? OPP. 4. Whether the defendant is in possession of the suit land since June, 1976, as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit, as alleged? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation, as alleged? OPD. 9. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD. 10. Relief. 7. Issues No. 1 and 3 were decided in affirmative, whereas, issue No.2 was decided partly in affirmative and partly in negative. All other issues were decided in negative. The suit of the plaintiff was accordingly decreed. 8. The first appeal filed by the defendant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala vide impugned judgment and decree. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 10. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 25.06.2013 on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Courts below totally misdirected themselves while deciding issue No. 2 and in this process impugned judgments & decrees as passed stand vitiated? 2. Whether Courts below misread and misappreciated oral and documentary evidence with specific reference to the statements of PW-1, DW-1 and DW-2? 3. Whether suit filed by plaintiff is hit by provisions of Article 100 of the Limitation Act and Courts below having over looked this aspect of the matter, thus, impugned judgments & decrees as passed stand vitiated and liable to be quashed and set aside?” 11. Both the Courts while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff have returned concurrent findings to the effect that though the defendant was in possession of suit land, but the claim of the plaintiff with respect to his possession over the suit land since June 1996 had not been proved. In holding so, both the Courts found the evidence led by the defendant to be inadequate. In holding so, both the Courts found the evidence led by the defendant to be inadequate. Except for self serving statement of defendant to claim possession over the suit land since June, 1996, nothing else was found to exist. Further, though both the Courts did not return any specific finding as to the date from which the defendant was holding possession of suit land, yet from the findings on issue No.2 returned by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned First Appellate Court, it can be inferred that defendant has been found to have proved his possession since 1986. For arriving at such a conclusion, reference can be made to the entries in revenue record relied upon by both the parties. Admittedly, it was during the jamabandi prepared for the year 1987-88 that the possession of the defendant came to be recorded for the first time, though without any status. 12. Both the Courts have further found lack of pleadings and proof to be the reason for declining the claim of defendant with respect to adversity of possession. 13. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts need no interference by this Court as the same have been found to be based on material/evidence on record. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts do not suffer from any illegality muchless material illegality or perversity. 14. In RSA No. 4219 of 2013 titled as Om Prakash and another vs. Bishan Dass, decided on 28.07.2023, this Court while expounding legal principles relating adverse possession observed as under:- “13. To succeed in plea of adverse possession, the first and foremost requirement is assertion and proof of hostile title by the possessor in denial of the title of true owner. The hostility of title would mean claim to the property as owner by clearly denying the title of true owner. Thereafter, the uninterrupted, open and hostile possession has to follow for the period of 12 years as prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. Hence, the need for proximal time when such assertion was first made becomes relevant. Reference in this regard can be made to the following expositions of law rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court: (i) (2004) 10 SCC 779 , Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India and others; “11. Hence, the need for proximal time when such assertion was first made becomes relevant. Reference in this regard can be made to the following expositions of law rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court: (i) (2004) 10 SCC 779 , Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India and others; “11. In the eye of 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 10 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 Sakinal, AIR 1964 SC 1254 , Parsinni v. Sukhi, (1993) 4 SCC 375 and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. 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. 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 (1996) 8 SCC 128 ). 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 (1996) 8 SCC 128 ). (ii) (2005) 8 SCC 330 , Saroop Singh vs. Banto and others; “29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date of defendant’s possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak vs. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak, (2004) 3 SCC 376 . 30. “Animus possidendi” is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless the person possessing the land has a requisite animus the period for prescription does not commence. As in the instant case, the appellant categorically states that his possession is not adverse as that of true owner, the logical corollary is that he did not have the requisite animus. (See Mohd. Mohd. Ali vs. Jagadish Kalita (2004) 1 SCC 271, para 21).” (iii) (2010) 3 Sim.LC 156, Gurdas and another vs. Devi Singh and others; “12. In Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and others, (2004) 10 SCC 779 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enunciated broad parameters required to be established by a person who claims adverse possession, vide para 11 of the judgment, which is to the following effect: “In the eye of 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 12 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 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. (Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr.) v. Raj Kumari Sharma).” 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court while reiterating the above ingredients has further held in T. Anjanappa and others v. Somalingappa and another, (2006) 7 SCC 570 “that mere possession howsoever long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner” vide para 20 of the judgment, which goes thus: “It is well-recognized proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily means 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 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.” 14. In another authoritative and exhaustive pronouncement of law reported as P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and others v. Revamma and others, (2007) 6 SCC 59 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court 14 has further emphasized that (1) starting point of adverse possession is of equal importance; (2) even an unduly long and undisturbed possession does not prove the intention of the person claiming title by adverse possession; (3) the initial burden lies on the land owner to prove his title and possession, the onus then shifts to other side to prove title by adverse possession and (4) since right to property is a human right, adverse possession should be considered in that context against the background that Courts around the world are taking an unkind view to the concept of adverse possession, should be kept in mind.” (iv) In Ran Singh (supra), this Court in para 21 of the judgment observed as under: “21. In another authoritative and exhaustive pronouncement of law, reported as Konda Lakshmana Bapuji (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further emphasized as under, in para 53 of the judgment.” The question of a person perfecting title by adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact. The principle of law in regard to adverse possession is firmly established. It is a well-settled proposition that mere possession of the land, however long it may be, would not ripen into possessory title unless the possessor has ‘animus possidendi’ to hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. It is true that assertion of title to the land in dispute by the possessor would, in an appropriate case, be sufficient indication of the animus possidendi to hold adverse to the title of the true owner. But such an assertion of title must be clear and unequivocal though it need not 15 be addressed to the real owner. It is true that assertion of title to the land in dispute by the possessor would, in an appropriate case, be sufficient indication of the animus possidendi to hold adverse to the title of the true owner. But such an assertion of title must be clear and unequivocal though it need not 15 be addressed to the real owner. For reckoning the statutory period to perfect title by prescription both the possession as well as the animus possidendi must be shown to exist. Where, however, at the commencement of the possession there is no animus possidendi, the period for the purpose of reckoning adverse possession will commence from the date when both the actual possession and assertion of title by the possessor are shown to exist. The length of possession to perfect titles by adverse possession as against the Government is 30 years.” 14. Proof of long standing unauthorized possession can only be a relevant trait for consideration of plea for acquisition of title by adverse possession but cannot be the sole criteria. The underlying principle remains the proof to possess the land of another as owner with requisite hostile animus, as discussed above, and further proof of uninterrupted, open, peaceful continuity of same state for 12 years. Since, by plea of adverse possession, rightful title of someone is sought to be taken away, a heavy burden lies upon the defendants to prove the plea of adverse possession. In case of failure to prove the adverse possession, any other form of possession howsoever, long, cannot be held sufficient to non-suit the plaintiff in his prayer for possession of the suit land on the basis of title.” 15. Reverting to the facts of the case, even if the possession of the defendant on the suit land is presumed to exist since 1986, for want of requisite pleadings and proof, plaintiff cannot be said to have been able to prove his adverse possession so much, so that the defendant while making deposition before the Court did not even averred that he had been occupying the suit land as owner to the open knowledge of plaintiff for the requisite period of 12 years 16. In absence, the possession of plaintiff howsoever long cannot deter the plaintiff from claiming possession of suit land on the basis of title. In absence, the possession of plaintiff howsoever long cannot deter the plaintiff from claiming possession of suit land on the basis of title. For filing suit of possession on the basis of title, the limitation as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, begins to run from the date when the possession of defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. If the possession of the defendant is not proved to be adverse, there is no limitation to file suit for possession on the basis of title. 17. As regards the applicability of Article 100 of the Limitation Act, the plea in this regard is completely mis-conceived and untenable. Even if the plaintiff had not challenged the proceedings or order which resulted in recording of possession of plaintiff in the jamabandi for the year 1987-88, the suit of plaintiff would not fail for the simple reason that the suit on the basis of title to recover possession from a third person having no title can be filed at any time, subject to the limitation provided under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. 18. The substantial questions of law, as noticed above, are accordingly decided against the appellant. 19. In the light of the above observations, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.