IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the stringent requirements for establishing adverse possession, including the need for hostile possession, open and continuous possession, and the burden of proof on the defendant to establish adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant Regular Second Appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment and decree dated 30th November, 2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 47-I/XII/2011, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Indora, District Kangra, H.P. on 23.06.2011 in Civil Suit No. 96 of 2006 has been affirmed.

2. Original suit No. 96 of 2006 was filed by original plaintiff (respondent herein) in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Indora, District Kangra, H.P., against the original defendant Sh. Keshav Singh (predecessor-in-interest of appellants herein) inter-alia, seeking a decree of possession in respect of land comprised in Khata No. 114 min, Khatauni No. 520, Khasra No. 1245, measuring 0-08-26 hectares situated in Mohal and Mauja Indpur, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P.

3. Parties hereafter shall be referred by the same status as they held before the learned trial Court.

4. The plaintiff claimed himself to be co-owner of suit land. It was alleged that defendant had wrongly and forcibly occupied the suit land in December, 1996 at the back of plaintiff. The defendant was alleged to be a trespasser and encroacher and accordingly a decree for possession was claimed.

5. The defendant claimed his possession over the suit land since June, 1976. As per defendant, he was a co-owner of the suit land and in alternative, the defendant claimed to have perfected title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. The defendant also claimed to have planted mango trees on the suit land, which at the time of putting up defence were stated to be more than 25 years of age.

6. The learned trial Court framed the following issues on 27.04.2007:-

1. Whether the plaintiff alongwith other co-sharers is owner of the suit land, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the revenue record reflecting the defendant in possession over the suit land is wrong and procured in connivance with the settlement staff, as alleged? -OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession over the suit land against the defendant, as prayed? OPP.

4. Whether the defendant is in possession of the suit land since June, 1976, as alleged? OPD.

5. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit, as alleged? OPD.

8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation, as alleged? OPD.

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

10. Relief.

7. Issues No. 1 and 3 were decided in affirmative, whereas, issue No.2 was decided partly in affirmative and partly in negative. All other issues were decided in negative. The suit of the plaintiff was accordingly decreed.

8. The first appeal filed by the defendant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala vide impugned judgment and decree.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

10. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 25.06.2013 on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the Courts below totally misdirected themselves while deciding issue No. 2 and in this process impugned judgments & decrees as passed stand vitiated?

2. Whether Courts below misread and misappreciated oral and documentary evidence with specific reference to the statements of PW-1, DW-1 and DW-2?

3. Whether suit filed by plaintiff is hit by provisions of Article 100 of the Limitation Act and Courts below having over looked this aspect of the matter, thus, impugned judgments & decrees as passed stand vitiated and liable to be quashed and set aside?”

11. Both the Courts while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff have returned