Kamlesh Sharma, J.—This appeal under Paragraph 32 of Himachal Pradesh Courts Order is directed against the decree and judgment dated 4-12-1982 passed by Additional District Judge, Shimla whereby the decree and judgment dated 14-6-1978 of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla was confirmed and the suit of appellant-plaintiff Inder Dass was dismissed.

2. The subject-matter of the litigation between the parties is and measuring 11 biswas, comprised in Khasra No 275/2, situate in Chak Shathala, Pargna Kothi-Kotgarh, Sub-Tehsil Kumarsain District Shimla (hereinafter called the land in dispute). For it suit was filed by Inder Dass as far back as on 30-12-1972 for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendant State of Himachal Pradesh from interfering in his possession, which according to him was of half a century old, since his fore-fathers. Inder Dass claimed that he was using the land in dispute as his courtyard, he had constructed kitchen and planted ten apple trees therein para 5 of his plaint his averments are that:— "The defendant and its officials never objected to the construction of the kitchen and planting of the trees on the land. The plaintiffs action and the possession was open, visible as an owner and hostile to the knowledge of the defendant. Now the defendant is estopped from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff." According to Inder Dass, cause of action arose to him when proceedings under section 163 of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (hereinafter called the Act) were held against him ia which eviction order was passed ; his appeal against the eviction order was dismissed and respondent-defendant No. 1 tried to dispossess him from the land in dispute

3. The suit was resisted by the respondent-defendant No. 1 and others who filed separate written statements. Their main contention was that Inder Dass had no right, title or interest over the land in dispute and he was rightly being dispossessed in pursuance of the eviction order passed under section 163 of the Act. They have pointed out that the land in dispute is part of Khasra No. 275, which is recorded as Charand and in possession of right-holders.

4. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the adverse possession of Inder Dass over the land in dispute was short of statutory period of 30 years on the date of filing suit by him i. e. 30-12-1972. While discussing the evidence produced by Inder Dass the trial Court has observed that:— "It is also on record that the Apple trees planted in the suit land are 30 to 35 years old and that the plaintiff had constructed the Kitchen in the suit land only 25 years back, The statement of the plaintiff and his witnesses were recorded in April, 1978. Therefore, as per the statement of the plaintiff and PWs it would be deemed that at the time of the filing of the suit in 1971, the Kitchen was constructed only 18 years back and the Apple trees were only 27 years old at the time of filing the suit."

5. The trial Court has further accepted the submission made on behalf of Inder Dass that his possession was deemed to be open, hostile and notorious since he had constructed his kitchen and planted orchard on the land in dispute but it found the period of such possession as of about 27 years and suit was dismissed The findings of the trial Court have been confirmed by the first appellate Court. Hence the present regular second appeal.

6. In the facts and circumstances of this appeal the real point for consideration is, when the possession of Inder Dass became adverse and whether it had continued for a statutory period of 30 years without inter- , ruption on the date of filing the suit, if not, whether the period after institution of the suit can be counted for completing the statutory period ? By now it is well settled that for claiming possessory title on the basis of adverse possession, not only the plea of adverse possession should specifically be taken but it m