1. This appeal was admitted on 18.2.1992 on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding that the respondent-plaintiff had perfected his title over the suit land by remaining in possession for more than 12 years, is legal and justified?"

2. Learned counsel for appellants assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Court below on following grounds:

(i) That the plaintiff/respondent took inconsistent pleas in the case. On one hand plaintiff took plea that the land was exchanged by the father of plaintiff Ranchor Singh with Ram Pratap Singh, the father of appellants No. 1 to 3 and 5 and husband of appellant No.4 and Smt. Manu Kunwar, and simultaneously the plaintiff pleaded adverse possession on the aforesaid land. Both the pleadings were inconsistent and conflicting and on the basis of these pleadings suit ought to have been dismissed. Reliance is placed to apex Court judgment in Karnataka Board of WAKF v. Government of India and others [(2004) 10 SCC 779] and a decision of this Court in Biharilal v. Jegannath [1992 RN 81].

(ii) That the trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiff/respondent, but the appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondent on the ground of adverse possession. The approach of lower appellate Court was erroneous and the lower appellate Court had not considered this aspect.

(iii) That appellants No. 2 and 3 were minors when the previous litigation under section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC' for short) took place between the parties, so the plea of adverse possession cannot be considered against the minors and the suit of plaintiff ought to have been dismissed on this ground.

(iv) The plaintiff was required to plead and prove, when his possession became adverse to the appellants, starting point of limitation and some over act that his possession became hostile to the true owner, but in this case in absence of such pleadings and proof, the suit of plaintiff ought not to have been decreed on the ground of adverse possession. Reliance is placed to the apex Court judgment in the case of S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina [AIR 1964 SC 1254].

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted that the suit was rightly decreed by the Court below. Though the lands were exchanged between Ranchor Singh and Ram Pratap Singh, the predecessors of parties, but in absence of any document in this regard, the aforesaid plea could not be proved. But the fact remains that proceedings under section 145 of CrPC, took place between the parties and final order under section 145 of CrPC, was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Exh. P-l) on 13.4.1970. Before this by order (Exh. P-2), dated 9.9.1969 the land in question was attached from the plaintiff and was given on Supurdgi. After the decision of Exh. P-l on 13.4.1970 the lands were restored in possession of plaintiff on 11.5.1970. Since then aforesaid land remained in possession of plaintiff and in absence of any proceedings before any Competent Court for taking possession of the property from the plaintiff, the plaintiff acquired right, by way of adverse possession.

The appellants ought to have taken steps for declaring of their right or for possession through process of the Court. After getting possession under section 145 of CrPC, respondent was entitled to retain possession until evicted there from in due process of law. The appellants under Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act were entitled to get the possession back within a period of 12 years. The possession of respondent was specifically adverse. The appellants on getting possession from Supurdgidar on 11.5.1970 as per Exh. P-4, after completion of period of 12 years, in absence of filing a suit for possession against the respondent, the rights of appellants in the land were extinguished and thus respondents acquired right. In this