The central legal point established in the judgment is that to prove adverse possession, the claimant must demonstrate the starting point of adverse possession and show effective, continuous, and public possession over the disputed property.

V.K. Ahuja, J.

This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 1.2.1999 of the court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., vide which he has allowed the appeal of the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) and the judgment and decree, dated 29.4.1989 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ghumarwin decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs was set aside.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that they and proforma defendants No. 9 to 19 are owners in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 77 measuring 101 Bigha, as detailed in the plaint. It was alleged that defendants No. 1 to 8 are owners in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 76 measuring 0-16 Bigha, which is just adjoining to Khasra No. 77. It was alleged that the suit land was wrongly shown as part of Khasra No. 76 during consolidation operation and the plaintiffs along with proforma defendants were put in possession over Khasra No.77 measuring 1-01 Bigha by the consolidation authorities in the year 1962-63. It was further alleged that on 21.6.1985, the defendants threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess them forcibly and they have not been allowed to do so, as on some portion of the land, a cow shed of the plaintiffs was standing and the remaining portion of the land in question is used by the plaintiffs for keeping dry grass etc. It was alleged that Khasra No. 76/1 is a part of Khasra No. 77, of which the plaintiffs are owners in possession and the plaintiffs learnt about mischief of the defendants when they got Tatima from Halka Patwari. It was alleged that there was a mistake of revenue agency at the time of preparation of village map and the plaintiffs may be declared as owners in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession since their possession over the land in dispute is peaceful, open and hostile since 1962-63. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in their favour.

3. Defendants No. 1 to 8 took the preliminary objections in regard to maintainability, non-joinder of necessary parties etc. On merits, they pleaded that defendants No. 1 to 8 are owners in possession of the land in suit comprised in Khasra No. 76, measuring 16 Biswas. It was alleged that the land of defendants is adjoining to Khasra No. 77. It was denied that the land comprised in Khasra No. 76/1 has wrongly been shown in Khasra No. 76 by mistake. They denied that the plaintiffs were ever put in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 76/1 by the consolidation authorities. It was further pleaded that Smt. Jiuni, previous owner, was put in possession during consolidation and land comprised in Khasra No. 76/1 measuring 16 Biswas was sold to Mahant Ram and defendants No. 1 to 8 purchased this land from Mahant Ram vide sale deed, dated 18.11.1970 for a sale consideration of Rs. 23,000/- and since then, the defendants are in possession of the suit land.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned trial Court:

1. Whether the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are owners in possession over the suit land as alleged? OPP.

1A. Whether the plaintiffs have become owner in possession over the suit land by virtue of adverse possession in alternative as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the revenue entries qua suit land are wrong and illegal as alleged? OPP.

3. Whether the defendants are interfering over the suit land as alleged ? OPP.

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged. OPD.

5. Whether the suit is not properly valued as alleged ? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged ? OPD.

7. Whether the suit is time barred as alleg