ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.M. Kharadi for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Rajesh K. Shah for the respondents–caveators. 2. Mr. Kharadi submitted that Regular Civil Suit no.30/20 was filed by the plaintiffs stating that they are in possession of the property for about more than 84 years on the suit land as a tenant and at the same time, they claimed the ownership of the property and has made a prayer to declare them as owner and injunction sought against the present appellants for not creating any encumbrance on the suit land or to execute any deed of mortgage or gift deed or execute any sale transaction and further the injunction has been prayed to restrict the present appellants as defendants and/or by the agent, assignee or others for creating obstruction in the agricultural land. Mr. Kharadi submitted that the suit itself was not maintainable and hence, the defendants had moved an application under order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint as the tenancy right was terminated and order was passed by the revenue authority to hand over the possession to the original owner and hence, by way of entry no.9985, the possession was handed over to the appellants as being the owner of the land from the year 1967. Mr. Kharadi submitted that the plaintiffs cannot claim the possession on the land as owner when they have urged the case of being a tenant on the land. Mr. Kharadi submitted that both the claims cannot run together and the Trial Court thus having observed the bar in jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 85 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has rejected the claim and has further observed that the plea of adverse possession is barred by law of limitation. The order was challenged by the plaintiffs before the learned Appellate Court and the learned Appellate Judge while allowing the appeal has quashed and set aside the order of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Anklav dated 9.3.2021 below Exh.12. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants as owner of the land are before this Court. 3. Mr. Kharadi submitted that the learned Appellate Court is required to frame the issues as mandated under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC. Mr. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants as owner of the land are before this Court. 3. Mr. Kharadi submitted that the learned Appellate Court is required to frame the issues as mandated under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC. Mr. Kharadi has relied upon the decision in the case of K. Karuppuraj v. M. Ganesan, (2021) 10 SCC 777 . Mr. Kharadi submitted that names of the heirs were mutated in the year 2002 and 2014 while no objection was raised by the plaintiffs. Had the plaintiffs made their title absolute by way of adverse possession, they would have certainly raised an objection to such an entry. 4. Countering the arguments, learned advocate Mr. Shah for the respondents–caveators submitted that after termination of the tenancy right, the possession was never handed over to the original owner and the plaintiffs continued in the possession of the land and have made a claim affecting their rights as owner by way of adverse possession. Advocate Mr. Shah submitted that necessary documents were produced on record to prima facie show the possession of the land from the year 1931-32, with all entries as well as the notice issued under Section 32 of the Act and also the bills of the pump installed in the land, water bill, other receipts and even the receipts of cultivation of tobacco, revenue receipts and also the affidavits of the neighbours were produced on record to support the claim of adverse possession. Mr. Shah submitted that the learned Appellate Court has rightly observed that had the issue be considered under the tenancy right then the Civil Court was supposed to refer the same to the competent authority and till then, the suit was ordered to be stayed. 5. Perused the judgments of both the Courts. The learned Trial Court observing the bar to the maintainability of the suit has rejected the plaint. It is required to be noticed that the learned Trial Court was conscious of the fact that the plea of adverse possession was raised by the plaintiffs, however, has held that the plaintiffs were required to file the suit within the limitation of 12 years. It is required to be noticed that the learned Trial Court was conscious of the fact that the plea of adverse possession was raised by the plaintiffs, however, has held that the plaintiffs were required to file the suit within the limitation of 12 years. The learned Appellate Court has rightly held that if the suit being barred under Section 85 of the Act, then the Civil court could have stayed the suit as provided under Section 85A of the Act and referred the issue to the competent authority for determination. 6. The plea of adverse possession has been raised. The plaintiff had placed on record the documentary evidence in support of their plaint. While deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the learned Trial Court was required to read the only pleadings of the plaintiffs supported by the documents and ought not to have considered or observed the defence raised by the defendants. 7. The provision of Article 65 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to the defendants and not the plaintiffs, where within 12 years, if the defendants had the knowledge that the possession of the land of the disputing parties had become adverse. The scope of adverse possession under Article 65 deals with clear, continuous and hostile possession which is required to be established by way of cogent evidence and animus possidendi must be created. The 3 classic requirements must co-exist i.e. nec vi i.e. adequate in continuity; nec clam, i.e. adequate in publicity; and nec precario, i.e. adverse to competitor, in denial of title and knowledge. 8. The plaintiffs were required to be given an opportunity to prove their case, where they have pleaded that they have become owner of the land by way of adverse possession. The burden of proof is raised on the person claiming adverse possession. In terms of Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, the legal position has undergone the complete change insofar as onus of proof is concerned. The burden of proof is raised on the person claiming adverse possession. In terms of Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, the legal position has undergone the complete change insofar as onus of proof is concerned. The Court while considering the claim of nec vi i.e. adequate in continuity; nec clam, i.e. adequate in publicity; and nec precario, i.e. adverse to competitor, in denial of title and knowledge, ought to have examined whether it is sufficient that the possession is overt and without any attempt of concealment so that the person against whom time is running ought if he exercises due vigilance to be aware of what is happening and could pray for the possession within the period of limitation. The claim of adverse possession being a hostile assertion involving expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner can continue in possession as owner, the burden is always on the person who asserts such a claim to prove by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and in deciding such claim, the courts must have regard to the animus of the person doing those acts. 9. The learned Appellate Court has rightly held that in case of any dispute with regard to the issue which requires to be dealt with by the competent authority under the Act, the Court could have stayed the suit and referred the issue to the competent authority. 10. The claim of the plaintiffs is of perfecting the title on the land as owner by way of adverse possession. Necessary documents to the pleadings have been produced. The learned Trial Court had fell in error in rejecting the plaint. This court does not find any reason to entertain the Second Appeal as no substantial question could be raised. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Kharadi submitted that in view of observation in the case of K. Karuppuraj (supra), since there is no compliance of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC which is mandatory in nature, the matter is required to be remanded back to the learned Appellate Court for considering the matter afresh. 12. Mr. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Kharadi submitted that in view of observation in the case of K. Karuppuraj (supra), since there is no compliance of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC which is mandatory in nature, the matter is required to be remanded back to the learned Appellate Court for considering the matter afresh. 12. Mr. Kharadi has also referred to Section 135-J to submit that there is always a presumption of correctness of the entries in the record of rights and register of mutation which shows the defendants as owner of the property and in possession cultivating the land. 13. In the case of K. Karuppuraj (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that while disposing of the appeal, High Court had not raised the points for determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC and being the first Appellate Court has not dealt with the entire matter and issue in detail. High Court has neither reappreciated the evidence on record nor has given specific findings on the issues which were raised before the learned Trial Court. 14. It requires to be noticed that the learned Appellate Court has raised the issue to consider the legality and validity of the order below Exh.12. No issues had been framed by the learned Trial Court for reconsideration by the Appellate Judge. The only order which was before the learned Appellate Court was Exh.12. The learned Appellate Court was called upon to examine the validity of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The stage of reappreciation of the evidence had not arisen. The learned Appellate Court was not required to enter into all the details of the evidence on record since the plaint came to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and hence, this Court is of the view that the single point for determination raised by the learned Appellate Court is in consonance with the spirit and scope of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. It cannot be said that the learned Appellate Court was casual in deciding the appeal nor it can be observed that the appeal has been decided in perfunctory manner. The learned Appellate Court has dealt with the observations of the learned Trial Court and the findings for rejection of the plaint. It cannot be said that the learned Appellate Court was casual in deciding the appeal nor it can be observed that the appeal has been decided in perfunctory manner. The learned Appellate Court has dealt with the observations of the learned Trial Court and the findings for rejection of the plaint. The learned Appellate Court has considered the pleadings of the plaint in totality, to observe the pleadings of the plaintiffs as contended about the possession. The learned Appellate Court has even considered the provision of Section 85A of the Act and also has dealt with the provision of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC to observe that while dealing with the application under the said provision, the Court has to see only the statement in the plaint and not a written statement or any documentary evidence filed by the defendants and that the plaint has to be read in entirety and not in piecemeal method. The learned Appellate Court has also prima facie dealt with the pleadings and the provision of law and has found the order of the learned Trial Court undefendable and thereby has quashed and set aside the same. This Court is of the view that the observation made by the learned Appellate Court is in consonance with the provisions of law. 15. This Court does not find any reason to entertain the second appeal. The learned Appellate Court’s order is just and proper and hence, is confirmed. In the result, Regular Civil Suit no.30/20 is ordered to be restored on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Anklav, District Anand. The learned Judge to frame the issues and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. Connected Civil Applications also stand disposed of.