The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific pleadings and proof of adverse possession, the burden of proof on the party claiming adverse possession, and the starting point of limitation. The judgment emphasized the legal principles governing adverse possession and the necessity of proving hostile possession and denying the true owner's title.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The defendants are the appellants, who after having lost in both the learned Courts below have filed the instant appeal.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the original plaintiff Bir Singh filed a suit for possession on the ground that he alongwith other co-sharers is owner and was in possession of the land bearing Khata No.6 min, Khatauni No. 24, Khasra No. 169, measuring 0-90-10 HM, situated in Tikka and Mauza Miani, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. as per jamabandi for the year 1993-94 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It was averred that in the month of November, 1990 the plaintiff-respondent was in possession of the suit land and the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants took possession in November, 1990 and further averred that predecessorin-interest of the appellants namely Karam Singh was never inducted as tenant. It was averred that during the settlement operation in the year 1981-82 said Karam Singh got himself recorded as ''Kabiz'' over the suit land illegally and unauthorisedly in collusion with the settlement officials, therefore, the suit for possession was filed.

3. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants i.e. Karam Singh contested and resisted the suit on various grounds. It was averred that he is coming in possession of the suit land since May, 1972 and thereafter during the settlement operation in the year 1981- 82 his such possession was recorded which was adverse to the respondent and therefore he had become owner by way of adverse possession.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court on 14.6.2002 framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property as prayed for?OPP

2. Whether the defendant has been in possession since May, 1972 and has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing of the present suit, as alleged? OPD

7. Relief.

5. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the suit as filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.5.2006. The appeal filed by the appellants/defendants against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.12.2007, constraining the defendants/appellants to file the instant appeal.

6. On 25.5.2009, the appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether impugned judgment and decree is the result of nonconsideration of provisions of Article 65 of the Limitation Act?

2. Whether impugned judgment and decree is the result of complete misreading as well as mis-interpretation of statements of DW-1 to DW-3 and Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-3?

3. Whether learned Courts below are right in not dismissing the suit of the respondent which was hopelessly barred on the face of it as is clear from the pleadings, more particularly para-6 of the plaint that cause of action had accrued in the year 1981-82 and suit was filed on 12th May, 1999?

4. Whether learned Courts below are right in not considering the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act and not dismissing the suit of the respondent which was barred on the face of it?

7. Since all these questions are intrinsically inter-linked and interconnected, therefore, they are answered by a common reasoning.

8. At the outset, it would be necessary to look into the pleadings regarding adverse possession which are contained in para-5 of the preliminary objection and thereafter reiterated in paras 1 and 3 of the reply on merits and the same reads thus:

"5. That the defendant is coming in possession over the suit land since May/1972 and has not been relinquished the po