A party claiming ownership by adverse possession must specifically plead and prove such possession, and cannot succeed on the basis of such a plea against the true owner without pleading and proving the factum of adverse possession for more than 12 years.

1. - This civil second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 4th December, 1981 passed by Addl. District Judge, Kishangarh Bas in Appeal No. 122/1980 confirming the judgment and decree passed by Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas dated 5th July, 1977 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant-appellants on 6th February, 1973 in the Court of Munsif, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar for permanent injunction in respect of the property in dispute and had also sought a relief from Trial Court against the defendant-appellants by restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the property in dispute. It was contended by the plaintiff before the Trial Court that he is in possession of the property in dispute as a owner since his ancestrals and that it was his ancestral property. It was further pleaded that the defendants have no interest in the property in dispute and that they forcibly want to dispossess the plaintiff from the premises, it was prayed that the defendants be restrained by means of a permanent injunction from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises.

3. The defendant-appellants contested the suit by pleading inter alia that the property in dispute was purchased by them by a registered sale-deed dated 29th January, 1973 for a sum of Rs. 2,500/- from the vendee who was having a title and possession of the same. It was further contended that with regard to the property shown in green colour in the site plan, the Plaintiff had permissive possession from one Purshottam Das Bhargava and the defendants were told by the plaintiff that he would be vacating the same within 5-7 days of its sale. It was further pleaded in the pleading that since the plaintiff was neither the owner nor in possession of the property in question which belonged to Purshottam Das Bhargava predecessor in title of the appellants, there was no question of dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises. The learned Trial Court on the pleadings of the parties and on the basis of evidence tendered on the record decreed the plaintiff's suit by its judgment and decree dated 5th July, 1977 which was affirmed in appeal by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kishangarh Bas by its judgment and decree dated 4th December, 1981. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kishangarh Bas the present second appeal has been preferred to this Court by the defendant-appellants.

4. The following substantial questions of law have been raised in this appeal :

1. Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in holding that the property in dispute was in adverse possession of the plaintiff, when no plea of adverse possession was taken nor any issue was framed in this regard ?

2. Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff was the owner of the property in dispute by adverse possession in face of his admission that the suit property belong to Purshottam Das Bhargava ?

5. During the course of hearing it was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that there are two properties described in the site-plan Ex.l shown in red and green colours respectively and both properties are adjoining to each other. The appellants purchased the said properties from its original owner Purshottam Das Bhargava vide registered sale deed dated 29th January, 1973 vide Ex. A-1 on the record and ever since then the appellants are in possession of the property in dispute shown in red colour in the site-plan, while the portion described in green colour in the site plan is in possession of the plaintiff- respondent. It has been further contended that the plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the whole property shown in the site-plan referred to above, wherein he had specifically averr