Point of Law: It is settled that necessary ingredients of adverse possession are required to be specifically pleaded and necessary factual foundation in support thereof is to be made out. Equally important is necessity to prove all necessary ingredients of adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

Appellant assails the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2008, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2007, whereby the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2007, passed by learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 51 of 1997.

2. Parties hereafter shall be referred to by the same status as they held before learned Trial Court. Appellant herein was the plaintiff and respondents herein were the defendants before the learned Trial Court.

3. Plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land measuring 56 sq. meters as entered in jamabandi for the year 1990-1991 of Muhal Pungh/26/7, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P and described as Khewat No. 43, Min Khatauni No.102, Khasra No. 1635( here-in-after to be referred as the ‘suit land’ ) by way of demolition of boundary wall illegally constructed by the defendants thereon in May, 1991. Plaintiff claimed the ownership of suit land alongwith proforma defendants No. 16 to 20. It was averred in the plaint that possession of the suit land was with plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 16 to 20 till the month of April, 1991. In May 1991, defendants taking benefit of the absence of plaintiff and his brothers from the suit land, raised a wall enclosing the suit land from its front as well as southern side. As per plaintiff, a request was made to defendants to remove the wall and not to interfere in the possession of plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 16 to 20 and also to restore the suit land in its original position but remained unsuccessful. Plaintiff could not institute the suit till 1997 as he was posted at far off stations out of his home district.

4. It was also averred in the plaint that though proforma defendants No. 5 to 7 have also been shown to be co-owners in the suit land alongwith plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 16 to 20, but in partition proceedings the suit land has been allotted in favour of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 16 to 20 exclusively.

5. Land comprised in Khasra No. 1636 was allotted to one of the co-owners Charan Dass and others, who further sold the said land to late Sh. Hukam Chand, father of proforma defendants No. 8 to 15. Sh. Hukam Chand constructed a shop on Khasra No. 1636 and subsequently sold the said shop alongwith land comprised in Khasra No. 1636 in favour of the predecessor-ininterest of defendants No. 1 and 2 including defendant No. 2 himself. Defendant No. 1 purchased the share of Khasra No. 1636 in the shape of shop from Sh. Kahan Singh etc. on 23.02.1989 being 1/3rd share measuring 48 sq. meters. As per plaintiff, proforma defendants No. 5 to 7 never raised any objection against the sale of this Khasra number by the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 16 to 20 in favour of Charan Dass and they never exerted their right on the suit land. Proforma defendants No. 8 to 15 have been arrayed as proforma defendants since the name of their father is recorded in revenue records as one of the person in possession of the suit land. This entry is stated to be wrong neither the proforma defendants No. 8 to 15 nor their predecessor-in-interest ever remained in possession of the suit land.

6. Defendants No. 1 to 7 contested the suit of the plaintiff. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the said defendants preliminary objections with respect to limitation, locus-standi of plaintiff to file the suit and estoppel were raised. On merits, the averments made in the plaint were denied in generality. However, a specific plea was raised, whereby continuance, open, hostile and exclusive possession of the suit land was claimed by the defendants since the date of its purchase i.e. 06.09.1974. It was alleged that the aforesaid possession of defendants has continued for more than twelve years and as such they have perfected the title over the su