IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RSA No. 2 of 2000 Date of Decision : September 27, 2010 Hari Ram …Appellant. v. Nek Ram …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar,, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J (Oral). This regular second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Sh. Nek Ram filed a suit for possession of the land in question against Sh. Hari Ram, present appellant. The suit was filed on the basis of title. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that he perfected his title by way of adverse possession and consequently plaintiff is no longer in possession of the same. 3. The trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether plaintiff is owner of the suit property? ….OPP 1 Whether reportrs of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Whether defendant is in adverse possession for the last 35 years? ……OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession? ….OPD 4. Relief. 4. In terms of judgment and decree dated 10.10.1996 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, in Civil Suit No. 175/1991, plaintiff’s suit was dismissed. 5. Plaintiff Nek Ram filed an appeal before the District Judge, Mandi. The aforesaid judgment was set aside and in terms of judgment and decree dated 2.12.1999 passed by District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1996, plaintiff’s suit for possession was decreed. 6. The present appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the first appellate court was justified in holding that the appellant was not in adverse possession when it was proved on record that the appellant was in long, continuous hostile & peaceful possession for more than 35 years? 2. Whether the first appellate court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Trial Court? 7. Law with regard to the adverse possession is well settled. Adverse possession means hostile assertion i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Burden to prove adverse possession is on the 3 defendant. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. {Annasaheb Babusaheb Patil and others versus Balwant alias Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil (AIR 1995 Supreme Court 895)}. In Parwatabali vs. Sonabali and others (AIR 1997 Supreme Cout 381) their Lordships observed that the person who claims adverse possession must establish the exact date from which adverse possession started running in view of the provisions of Article 65 of the Limitation Act. 8. Now in the instant case defendant has not pleaded the exact date from which his possession became hostile qua the plaintiff. That apart, from the oral testimonies of the defendant’s witnesses S/Sh. Hari Ram (DW-1), Manohar Lal (DW-2) & Smt. Rukmani (DW-3) also this fact could not be inferred. Except for bald statement that they are in possession for the last 35 years, there is nothing on record to show that the cowshed in question was actually constructed by the defendant and is in uninterrupted possession. 9. The court below has correctly appreciated the material on record. Hence, questions of law do not arise for consideration. The present appeal without any merit is dismissed. September 27, 2010. (Sanjay Karol) (rana) Judge.