IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 217 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.09.2025. Shri Ram Nath .....Appellant. Versus Shri Prem Sain and others …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Bhag Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present appellant has filed this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), assailing the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Rohru, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 4-R/13 of 2024, whereby the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed and judgment and decree dated 12.01.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jubbal, (Camp at Rohru), District Shimla, H.P. in Civil Suit 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 No. 253/1 of 2019 titled Prem Sain vs. Ram Nath and others has been affirmed. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referred before learned Trial Court. The facts of the present suit are that the plaintiff filed a suit for vacant possession of land situated in Chak Rantari, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., asserting his ownership as a co-sharer and alleging that defendant No. 1 was in illegal possession as a trespasser. The plaintiff claimed he was serving in the Police Department and was not residing in his village, and upon his return in March 2014, he discovered the defendant's unauthorized occupation. He further pleaded that despite repeated requests, the defendant refused to vacate the land in September 2019. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit, admitting the plaintiff's co-ownership but claiming that the plaintiff had lost his rights due to the defendant's adverse possession for over 25 years, specifically from 01.10.1996. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was unaware of the possession, alleging instead that the plaintiff visited the village and was aware of the hostile possession. Proforma defendants No. 2 to 4 did not contest the suit. 3 3. Learned Trial Court framed following issues from the pleadings of the parties on 25.09.2021 and 11.01.2024, respectively:- 1. Whether the suit land is in illegal possession of defendant No. 1, without any right, title or interest in the suit land, as prayed for? OPP 1A Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for vacant possession of suit land, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff came to know about the illegal possession of the defendant in the month of March, 2014, as prayed?OPP 3. Whether the defendant No. 1 have illegally and unlawfully encroached upon the suit land, as prayed for?OPP 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation as plaintiff is out of possession for more than 25 years, as alleged?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the suit for specific khasra number without getting it partitioned, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the defendant has become the owner by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged?OPD 8. Whether the land is coming into peaceful possession of defendant from 01.10.1996, as alleged?OPD 9. Relief 4. After recording evidence, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No. 1 filed a first appeal, arguing that the judgment and decree were against the law and facts. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to record separate findings on each issue, particularly on issue Nos. 2 and 6. It 4 was argued that the finding that the defendant had not become the owner by adverse possession was contrary to law. 5. It was further submitted that the trial court drew incorrect inferences from the pleadings and documents and failed to accord proper evidentiary value to the revenue records exhibited under the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The first appellate court, however, dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's judgment and decree. Therefore, the present second appeal has been filed. 6. Heard counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 7. The core of the appellant's case was that his possession of the suit land, dating back to October 1996, was hostile, continuous and known to the plaintiff, thereby maturing into ownership. However, the evidence on record, including the appellant's own testimony, fundamentally undermines this claim. 8. The defendant, while testifying as DW-1, made a crucial admission that the suit land was given to him by the plaintiff's father to look after because the plaintiff and his brother did not reside in the village. This admission is fatal to the claim of adverse possession, as it establishes that the appellant's initial possession was permissive and not 5 hostile. A possession that begins with the permission of the owner cannot be characterized as adverse for the purpose of acquiring title. 9. Furthermore, the evidence led by the appellant failed to prove that his possession was either hostile or known to the plaintiff, which are essential prerequisites. The testimony of the appellant's own witnesses, DW-2 and DW-3, was inconsistent and ultimately did not substantiate the assertion that the plaintiff had knowledge of a hostile claim. DW-3 specifically admitted that the plaintiff did not know about the appellant's possession. Consequently, the necessary element of the possession being "open and notorious" to the true owner was not met. 10. Mere long-term possession, as reflected in the revenue records (Ext.P-2/PW/1 and Ext.DW1/B), is insufficient to prove adverse possession in the absence of clear and convincing evidence of animus possidendi, the intention to possess the property as an owner against the world. The appellant's case lacked any specific evidence demonstrating a clear overt act of hostility or a point in time when the permissive possession was converted into an adverse one, communicated to the plaintiff. Therefore, the concurrent findings of the courts below, which held that the appellant failed to prove his claim of adverse 6 possession and that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession based on his established title, are sound and do not warrant interference in the present second appeal. 11. In view of the aforesaid, there arises no question of law much less a substantial question of law for the consideration of the Court. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 22nd September, 2025 (Susheel/T.B.)