IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.: 587 of 2008 Date of decision : 10.9.2009. Hoshiar Singh …Appellant. Versus Gorkhi Ram …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. No. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. T.S.Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 58-J/XIII/2006 decided on 5.7.2008, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the judgement and decree dated 14.12.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jawali in Civil Suit No. 69 of 2000 was confirmed. The respondent (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff) instituted a suit for possession against the appellant (here-in-after referred to as the defendant on 27.12.1999, on the allegation that he had been allotted the suit land and was owner in possession thereof. During settlement operation in the year 1984-85 the defendant had manipulated a revenue entry showing him to be tenant in possession of the suit land in collusion with the officials of the Settlement Department. On the basis of such wrong entry the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 defendant was trying to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and in January, 1990 the defendant had taken forcible possession of the suit land. The suit was resisted on various grounds. According to the defendant, he and his predecessor-in-interest were in possession of the suit land for more than 35 years as tenant and he had acquired rights of ownership under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The allotment of the land in favour of the plaintiff was stated to be illegal. It was also urged that the suit was not within limitation and in the alternative the defendant had become owner by way of adverse possession. Both the Courts below have come to a concurrent finding of fact that the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff only in the year 1990 and have decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. These are pure findings of fact which cannot be disturbed in Regular Second Appeal. Admittedly, the suit land was originally Shiamlat land. In the revenue record, the defendant was shown in possession of the land. The suit land vested in the Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilisation) Act. Thereafter, the suit land vested in the State under the H.P.Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilisation) Act. Thereafter, the State had allotted the suit land to the plaintiff. Defendant cannot claim to be tenant and also owner by way of adverse possession at the same time. There is no proof that the defendant or his predecessor-in-interest ever paid any rent. Therefore, the defendant was rightly held, not to a tenant on the suit land. As far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned, this plea is inconsistent with the plea of tenancy. Even if the plea is 3 permitted to be taken, it is apparent that the defendant never denied the title of the plaintiff. The possession becomes adverse only when the title is denied. It was lastly contended that the suit was not within limitation. The plaintiff while appearing in the witness box stated that he was aware of the entry being made in favour of the defendant in the year 1984 but has clearly stated that the possession was taken from him only in the year 1990. If possession was taken in the year 1990, the suit is within limitation. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed in liminie. September10, 2009. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.