The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of adverse possession as a valid claim, supported by evidence of exclusive possession to the exclusion of other co-owners.

1. These two Second Appeals No. 324/1997 and 325/1997 arise out of the common judgement of the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, dated 31st July, 1997.

2. The two appeals were admitted by identical orders dated 8th September, 1998. The order(s) read: "Heard. Admitted on the substantial questions of law framed by the appellant and as annexed with the memorandum of appeal. Mr. Navlesh Verma, learned counsel for the respondent, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent-Jagar Nath after admission."

3. The substantial questions of law as framed by the appellant(s) in both the cases are :-

1. Whether in absence of proper pleadings and proof of ouster could the plaintiff/respondent be held to be in exclusive possession of the suit property and perfected his title by way of adverse possession particularly in view of the sale deed dated 27-3-1972 acknowledging the right of other co-sharers in the suit property?

2. Whether the animus of hostility can be presumed in favour of one co-sharer merely on account of the fact that the said co-sharer is cultivating the land?

3. Whether mere non-participating in the profits of the joint land in any manner affects the status of the parties as co-owners? Was not it incumbent for the plaintiff/respondent to have led cogent evidence regarding family partition by virtue of which he claims exclusive title to the suit property? Was not presumption available to the defendant/appellant that possession of one co-sharer is possession of all?

4. Whether the possession of defendant/appellant and the predecessor as a tenant was proved on record on account of order of the Revenue Officer, receipts of payment of compensation acquiring proprietary rights?

5. Are not the findings of both the Courts below vitiated on account of not taking into consideration old and new Khasra numbers connecting the suit land particularly Ext. D-8, the MISAL HAKIAT?

6. Whether both the Courts below have misread the contents of Ext. D-1, Power of Attorney executed by the tenants in favour of Dila Ram for obtaining the proprietary rights? Was not the tenancy of Ram Dittu, predecessor-in-interest of the defendant/appellant, proved over the suit property if Ext. D-1 was read in conjunction with Ext. D-8?

7. When the defendant/appellant was proved to be in possession of the suit property as a tenant having acquired the title by operation of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, was it competent for the Courts below to have granted a decree for injunction in favour of the plaintiff/respondent?

4. The relevant facts for the disposal of these appeals may be noticed : Plaintiff-Jagar Nathu laid a Suit (No. 8/1 of 1982) before the Sub-Judge Ist Class, Arki, against Prem Chand and others for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession over the land subject-matter of dispute i.e. Khasra No. 135, measuring 6 Bighas 8 Biswas, situate in Mauja Gharo, Pargana Deora of Tehsil Arki in District Solan, as per Jamabandi for the year 1980-81.

5. The case of the plaintiff set out in the plaint is that the entire land is in possession of the plaintiff as it was given to his predecessor(s) in a private family partition a century ago. In alternative pleads plaintiff the defendants No. 6 to 14 and their predecessors never visited village Gharno nor they have ever objected to the long exclusive, open, continuous and hostile possession of the plaintiff and his predecessors in the land in suit. In these facts and because of the ouster of the co-owners, the possession of the plaintiff ripened into full ownership by way of adverse possession. The defendants have now started interfering with his possession without any right, title and interest and in fact on 26th November, 1982 defendants committed criminal trespass and threatened to cut the grass and dispossess the plaintiff.

6. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 who are strangers to the suit land, the allegat