The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain suits related to possession of land and that adverse possession requires specific elements to be proven.

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant who is being referred to as such hereinafter in this judgment.

2. A suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for possession of the land as detailed in the plaint. This suit was based on title. According to the averments made in the plaint, plaintiff purchased the same from Smt. Sarita Rani, wife of Narinder Kumar. She had purchased this land from its previous owner Shri Daya Ram son of Shri Tulsi Ram. The sales are reflected in the revenue records vide mutation Ext. PW. 1/B, in favour of Smt. Sarita Rani and vide mutation Ex. PW-1/C in favour of the plaintiff. Further the case set-up by the plaintiff was that he was residing at Shimla and had been in occupation of the suit property from the time he purchased it and prior to her, it was Smt. Sarita Rani who was in its occupation. Plaintiff could not attend to the land in question for a continuous period of 4-5 months in the year 1983 due to his political pre-occupation. Further, when he went in the month of October 1983, to see the land, he found defendant having cut and removed the grass who when asked to desist from such activities refused blankly. Thereafter the plaintiff claims to have collected the copies of revenue entries. Thus, according to him since October 1983, defendant was in occupation of the suit land. Entries were made in the revenue records unauthorisedly by the Revenue Staff in connivance with the defendant. No notice of such change being made was ever served upon the plaintiff. He further stated that there is no previty of contract between him and the defendant. In this background while praying for a decree for possession, plaintiff also claimed mesne profits in the sum of Rs. 1800/- and prayed for further future mesne profits @ 1000/- per annum from the date of filling of suit till delivery of possession.

3. Defendant when put to notice contested and resisted the suit. By way of preliminary objections he questioned the jurisdiction of civil Court to try the suit which. According to him, suit was exclusively triable by Revenue Court; he also challenged the locus standi of the plaintiff and his being out of possession for more than 19 years, thus the suit being time barred. Plaintiff had no cause of action and suit being not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, as also estoppel by way of plaintiffs acts, conduct, deeds silence and acquiescence were also set up as pleas to defeat the suit. On merits it was pleaded that defendant has become owner by operation of law and efflux of time. According to him, plaintiff as well as his predecessor Smt. Sarita Rani were never in possession of the suit land. While admitting that the plaintiff resides at Shimla, it was denied that Smt. Sarita Rani who was plaintiffs sister was ever in possession, as alleged prior to him (plaintiff). Defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff never visited the suit land as such there was no question of his having asked him (the defendant), not to interfere with possession as alleged at any point of time or in October 1983. Thus, he denied all the averments made in the plaint.

4. In replication claim made by the defendant in the written statement was denied. It was further pleaded that the defendant was a servant/Chowkidar who was looking after the land in dispute till October 1983. Though, till such time, the land in dispute was in possession of the plaintiff. All other pleas which were contrary to what was said in the plaint were denied and in replication averments made in the plaint were reiterated.

5. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, Trial Court framed following issues.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit land as alleged? .........OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits, as alleged ........OPP

3. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit property by efflux of time and operation of law, as alleged?.........OPD

4. Whether this Court has no jurisdicti