IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RSA No. 178 of 2008 Date of Decision : April 23, 2008 Hari Singh …Appellant. Versus: Saran Dass …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent: Nemo Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral). Shri Hari Singh, present appellant, filed Civil Suit No. 124/2000 praying for relief of permanent injunction against defendant Saran Dass, present respondent. The said suit was decreed in terms of the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (I), Dharamshala. In an appeal the decree was reversed and the plaintiff’s suit was decreed. Defendant Saran Dass was restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession except in accordance with law. Subsequently, Shri Saran Dass, respondent herein, as plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 55 of 2001 seeking a declaration, injunction and possession against Shri Hari Singh, defendant, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 appellant herein, with respect to the premises comprising Khata No. 104 Khatauni No.209 Khasra Nos. 441/1 and 442 measuring 0-00-43 hects. situated in Mohal Bhutehar, Mauza Tangroti, Tehsil Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, H.P. The suit was resisted by Shri Hari Singh on the ground that he had been in an uninterrupted possession of the suit premises w.e.f. 1.1.1960 and he had perfected his title by way of adverse possession. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether entries in the revenue record in favour of the defendant are wrong and illegal? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the suit land? OPP 5. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct? OPD 9. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 10.Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 11. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? 12. Relief.“ 3 Plaintiff’s suit was decreed and the defendant’s plea of adverse possession was rejected by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 17.1.2003 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. Shri Hari Singh’s Civil Appeal No. 32-D/2003 was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2007 by the Addl. District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H. P. The first Appellate Court, after appreciating the material on record came to the conclusion that the defendant’s pleadings and evidence were vague, unspecific and it was not proved that the defendant had perfected his title on the suit premises by way of adverse possession. Learned counsel has argued that the Courts below have erred in relying upon the judgment delivered in Civil Suit No. 55/2001 for the reason that the question of title was not an issue in the earlier suit. The contention of the learned counsel needs to be rejected for the simple reason that both the Courts below have decided question of adverse possession (issue No.5) on the basis of pleadings and also the sworn testimony of defendant Hari Singh (DW-1) and his other witness Shri Parkash Chand (DW-2). The essential ingredients of adverse possession were not proved at all. Admittedly, the question of title was not a subject-matter of the earlier suit. Defendant, being a trespasser, not having proved his title had to be evicted. It is well settled that a person who bases his title on adverse possession must plead and prove by clear and 4 unequivocal evidence, that is, possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed. In deciding whether the acts of the defendant constitute adverse possession, regard has to be had to the animus of such defendant which has to be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. In P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and others v. Revamma and others (2007(6)SCC 59), the Apex Court has held that mere possession for howsoever length of time does not result in converting the permissible possession into adverse possession. Intention to possess cannot be substituted for intention to dispossess which is essential to prove adverse possession. No other point urged. I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Court below. In my view, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications also stand dismissed. April 23, 2008. ( Sanjay Karol ) (rana) Judge.