( 2026:HHC:17941 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 5 of 2025. Decided on :12 th May, 2026. Chet Ram & Ors. ...Appellants. Versus Mehar Chand & Anr. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr. H. S. Rana , Advocate with Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral). The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, as passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. dated 27.08.2024, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellants was dismissed and the judgment and decree, as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., dated 08.01.2019, was afÏrmed whereby the suit filed 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) by the respondents/plaintiffs for possession and permanent prohibitory injunction was decreed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that they are absolute owners of the suit land bearing khasra No.360. It was averred that defendants had forcibly and illegally encroached upon the suit land to the extent of 0-4 biswas, who are owners of adjoining property. The plaintiffs had applied for demarcation of their land and Tehsildar Baddi conducted demarcation on 30.06.2024 in presence of the defendants and other local persons including adjoining land owners. The demarcating ofÏcer found the defendants to be in unlwaful and unauthorised possession of 0-4 biswas of land out of khasra No. 360 and prepared tatima of encroached area, which was shown by the demarcating ofÏcer as tatima khasra No. 360/1 in the report. After obtaining the demarcation, the plaintiffs had requested the defendants to vacate the suit land as they are absolute owners of the suit property, however, the defendants had failed to do so. The 3 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) defendants threatened the plaintiffs to encroach upon the remaining portion of the land forcibly and illegally and also to change the character of the suit land. 3. As per the plaintiffs, the demarcation which was carried out by the revenue ofÏcer has become final as the defendants have failed to file any appeal against the same. Therefore, the plaintiffs had filed the suit for vacant possession of the suit land and for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner, changing the nature, character and raising construction over the suit land. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement raising preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action and locus standi etc. On merits, it was averred that the defendants are in possession 0-4 biswas area out of land measuring 5 bighas, 16 biswas comprised in Khasra No.360/1. The possession of the defendants is peaceful, continuous and adverse to the knowledge of plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-title, Shri Kirpu and Smt. Harnami, who were previous owners of the suit property. Shri Bhodu, predecessor-in- 4 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) title of the defendants entered into possession of the suit property about 70 years ago and built a house over the same and he remained in possession of the suit property within the knowledge of Shri Kirpu and Smt. Harnami, who never raised objection. 5. It is further averred that the predecessor-in-title of the defendants have set up their own title over the suit property, denying the title of predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs. The defendants have raised double storied building on the suit property to which no objection was raised either by the plaintiff or their predecessor-in-title as they admitted the defendants to be owners-in-possession of the suit property. It has been further averred that the possession of the defendants is adverse, open and hostile to the knowledge of plaintiffs and their predecessor-in- title, therefore, they have acquired title to the suit property. All the averments as made in the plaint were refuted by the defendants and sought the dismissal of the suit. 6. The plaintiffs filed the replication to the written statement filed by the defendants and all the averments made in 5 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) plaint were reiterated and that of the written statement were denied. 7. Learned trial Court on 04.08.2015, framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of a part of the suit land measuring 0-4 biswas, denoted by Khasra No. 360/1, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are also entitled for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit against the defendants? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs are guilty of suppressio- veri, if so, its effect? OPD. 6. Whether the defendants have perfected their title to a part of suit land, comprised in Khasra No. 360/1, by way of adverse possession? OPD. 7. Relief.” 8. Learned trial Court directed the respective parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions and finally, vide its judgment and decree dated 08.01.2019, the suit filed by the 6 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) plaintiff was decreed by passing a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for vacant possession of the suit land, measuring 0-4 biswas bearing tatima Khasra No. 360/1, out of Khasra No.360 (5 Bighas 16 Biswas), comprised in Khata/Khatauni Nos. 108/124 min, situated in the area of Village Kaundi, Pargana Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Further, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was also passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining them from interfering in any manner, changing nature, character and raising construction over the suit land. 9. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendants/appellants preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. on 08.02.2019. Learned first appellate Court vide its judgment dated 27.08.2024 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants. 10. Still feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the present regular second appeal. 7 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) 11. With the consent of the parties the appeal is finally heard at the admission stage on the following substantial question of law: Whether the judgments and decrees, as passed by the learned Courts below, are the result of misinterpretation and misconstruction of oral and documentary evidence as placed on record? 12. It is contended by Mr. H.S. Rana, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are erroneous and are liable to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that the defendants/appellants have acquired the title by adverse possession and, therefore, the decree for vacant possession of the suit land could not have been passed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. He has further contended that the possession of the present appellant is long and hostile for the last more than 70 years. Therefore, by virtue of adverse possession, the appellants have acquired the title and submitted that after accepting the present appeal, the suit as preferred by the present respondents/plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed. 8 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) 13. On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, learned senior counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has defended the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. He has submitted that the findings of fact recorded by both the learned courts below do not call for any interference. He has further submitted that the plea of adverse possession has been dealt with by the learned courts below elaborately after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The defendants have failed to plead and prove the adverse possession, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire material on record carefully. 15. The plaintiffs/respondents have filed the suit for possession on the basis of title and for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. In order to substantiate their case, the plaintiffs have placed on record EX.PW2/A, copy of the demarcation report, which has been given 9 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Baddi. The demarcation was carried out by Assistant Collector on 30.06.2014 and after conducting the same, he came to the conclusion that on the suit land bearing Khasra No. 360/1, the appellants have encroached to the extent of 0-4 biswas. The said report has been proved by PW- 2, Shri Keshwa Ram. He has entered into the witness box by stating that on 30.06.2014, he went to the suit land bearing Khasra No.360. On the said date, both the parties including the plaintiffs and the defendants, were present. Both the parties had appended their signatures and the demarcation was conducted, copy of the same is Ex.PW2/A. He has stated that the order as passed by him on 30.06.2014 is Ex.PW2/B and the Naksha Tafawat is Ex.PW2/C. He has further stated that with respect to the demarcation both the parties were made aware and on the spot present defendants/appellants had raised no objection. He has stated that as per the demarcation, the defendants have encroached upon 4 biswas of suit land. In his testimony, he has further stated that the demarcation was carried out qua khasra No.360, as per the Financial Commissioner Rules of the State of H.P. He has stated 10 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) that on the spot there is a built up area and he had stated so in his report. He has further stated that while demarcating the suit land, it was found that the built up area is over the suit land. 16. The plaintiffs have also examined PW-1 Nirmal Kumar, who had brought the record. 17. PW-3 Mehar Chand is the plaintiff and he has tendered in evidence his afÏdavit Ex.PW3/A, wherein, he has stated that disputed land is comprised of 4 biswas and that tatima qua khasra No.360/1 was prepared. The total area of khasra No.360 is measuring 5 bighas 16 biswas. That the suit land is situated at village Kaundi, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan. He has stated that the suit land is being owned by him along with his brother. He has further stated that the defendants have forcibly occupied the suit land measuring 4 biswas and at the relevant time, they had raised objection, but the defendants did not accede to their request. He has stated that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit land measuring 4 biswas, which has been illegally occupied by them. On 30.06.2014, the Tehsildar, Baddi demarcated the suit land along with the land of other 11 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) landowners. In the said demarcation, Tehsildar, Baddi had found four biswas of encroachment upon the suit land bearing tatima Khasra No. 360/1 as done by the defendant and to this effect the Tehsildar has prepared the Naksha Tafawat on the spot. It was stated by the plaintiff that the defendants were requested to vacate four biswas of land, which was illegally occupied by them, however, they failed to do so. In the cross-examination, nothing concrete could be extracted from the plaintiff. In cross- examination, plaintiff Mehar Chand, PW-3, admitted that while the construction was being raised by the defendants, he had raised objection qua the same. He denied that the defendants have become owners of the suit property. All the suggestions as made by the defendants were refuted by the plaintiff. 18. Defendants, in order to rebut the case of the plaintiffs, have examined Shri Lacchman, DW-1. The said witness has tendered in evidence his afÏdavit Ex.DW1/A. In the afÏdavit, he has stated that since time immemorial, he has seen the suit land in possession of the defendants. He has further stated that the defendants have raised the construction of house over the suit 12 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) land, which was constructed earlier by the predecessors-in-title of the defendants and thereafter the present defendants have raised new construction. He has stated that defendants are owners of the suit property and since time immemorial, he is seeing the possession of the defendants over the suit land. In the cross- examination, he has admitted that he does not remember when the structure was raised by the defendants. He has denied that the defendants raised the construction of the structure about 2-3 years back. 19. The defendants also examined DW-2 Ram Nath, retired Kanungo, in order to prove the site plan. He has tendered into evidence his afÏdavit Ex.DW2/A. He has stated that on 05.02.2015, he had prepared the site plan, Ex.DW2/B, which is true and correct as per the spot position. He had prepared the site plan by describing the houses and the area. In cross-examination, he has admitted that at the time of preparation of said plan, he was not having any revenue record. He has further admitted that he was knowing the khasra numbers of the houses over which they are situated. He has further admitted that he could not say 13 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) over which khasra number the structure is standing. He has stated that whatever he was told by the defendants, he has done as per their instructions. He does not know the khasra numbers of lands of adjoining landowners. 20. In order to prove their case, the defendants have examined defendant Ramji as DW-3. He has tendered into evidence his afÏdavit Ex.DW3/A, wherein, he has stated that they are in possession of the suit land since the time of their ancestors. He has stated that there is a structure situated over the suit land, earlier which was katcha structure and thereafter the same was made of concrete. It was stated that their predecessors-in-title are in possession of the suit land since time immemorial and they are the owners of the same. It was further stated that the defendants were never dispossessed from the suit land and they are in continuous possession of the same for the last more than 70 years. It has been stated that they never considered the plaintiffs to be the owners of the suit property. The defendants never considered the plaintiffs to be owners in possession of the suit property and by virtue of adverse possession, they have 14 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) become owners of the same. It was further stated that the plaintiffs have got no right, title or interest to dispossess the defendants from the suit land. It was further stated that by means of continuous uninterrupted possession, they have acquired the title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. They were never summoned by the revenue authorities while conducting the demarcation. In cross-examination, DW-3 has stated that he was not aware about the conducting of demarcation by the revenue authorities. He denied that at the time of demarcation, the defendants were present. He admitted that some portion of the structure is situated over khasra No. 360/1. It was stated by him that they never considered the plaintiffs to be owners of the suit land. Self stated that they considered themselves to be the owners of the suit land. It was denied that they forcibly occupied the suit land to the prejudice of the plaintiff. He has admitted that at the time of raising of construction, the plaintiffs have raised objections qua the same. He prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff. 15 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) 21. Perusal of the written statement as filed by the defendants shows that as per the averments as made in the same, the defendants have taken the defence that they are in possession of 4 biswas of land out of the total land measuring 5 bighas, 16 biswas, comprised in Khasra No. 360/1 and the said possession is peaceful and adverse to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. It has been averred in the written statement that the defendants have entered into the suit property about 70 years ago and they remained in possession over the same to the knowledge of the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs. Further, it has been stated that the defendants have set up their title and denied the title of the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs. As per the defendants, they have raised structure over the suit property. 22. Both the learned Courts below concurrently held that the defendants have failed to prove and plead the necessary ingredients to claim the title on the basis of adverse possession and they were non suited by holding that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for recovery of possession on the basis of title. 16 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) 23. Hon’ble Apex Court in Vasantha (dead) through legal representative vs. Rajalakshmi alias Rajam (dead) through legal representatives, (2024)5 SCC 282, has held that a person who claims adverse possession should show; (a) on what date he came into possession; (b) what was the nature of his possession; (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party; (d) how long his possession has continued: and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour since he is trying to defeat rights of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to prove his adverse possession. 24. Adverse possession is a right which comes into play not just because someone loses his right to reclaim the property out of continuous and willful neglect, but also on account of possessor’s positive intent to dispossess. Therefore, it is important to take into account before stripping somebody on his lawful title, whether there is an adverse possessor worthy and exhibiting more urgent and genuine desire to dispossess and step into the shoes of the owner of the property on paper. The 17 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) intention is a mental element which is proved and disproved through positive acts. Existence of some events can go a long way to weaken the presumption of intention to dispossess, which might have painstakingly grown out of long possession which otherwise would have sufÏced in a standard adverse possession case. The fact of possession is important in more than one ways; firstly, due compliance on this court attracts the Limitation Act and it also assists the court to unearth the intention to dispossess. 25. The intention to dispossess needs to be open and hostile enough to bring the same to the knowledge and the plaintiff has an opportunity to object. After all adverse possession right is not a substantive right but a result of the waiving or omission of the right to defend or care for the integrity of property on the part of the owner of the property on paper. Adverse possession statutes, like other statutes of limitation, rest on a public policy that does not promote litigation and aims at the repose of conditions that the parties have suffered to remain unquestioned long enough to indicate their acquiescence. Intention implies knowledge on the part of adverse possessor. 18 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) 26. The issue is that intention of the adverse user gets communicated to the owner of the property on paper. This is where the law gives importance to hostility and openness as pertinent qualities of manner of possession. It follows that the possession of adverse possessor must be hostile enough to give rise to a reasonable notice and opportunity to the owner of the property on paper. Intention to possess cannot be substituted for intention to dispossess which is essential to prove adverse possession. Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the exposition of law qua adverse possession in the following manner: (i) In T. Anjanappa and others vs. Somalingappa and another, (2006) 7 SCC 570, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “12. The concept of adverse possession contemplates a hostile possession i.e. a possession 19 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner. Possession to be adverse must be possession by a person who does not acknowledge the other's rights but denies them. The principle of law is firmly established that 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 denial of his title to the property claimed. For deciding whether the alleged acts of a person constituted adverse possession, the animus of the person doing those acts is the most crucial factor. Adverse possession is commenced in wrong and is aimed against right. A person is said to hold the property adversely to the real owner when that person in denial of the owner's right excluded him from the enjoyment of his property. 13. Possession to be adverse must be possession by a person who does not acknowledge the other's rights but denies them. “24. It is a matter of fundamental principle of law that where possession can be referred to a lawful title, it will not be considered to be adverse. It is on the basis of this principle that it has been laid down that since the possession of one co- owner can be referred to his status as co-owner, it cannot be considered adverse to other co-owner. 20 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) 14. Adverse possession is that form of possession or occupancy of land which is inconsistent with the title of the rightful owner and tends to extinguish that person's title. Possession is not held to he adverse if it can be referred to a lawful title. The person setting up adverse possession may have been holding under the rightful Owner's title e.g. trustees, guardians, bailiffs or agents. Such persons cannot set up adverse possession. "Adverse possession" means a hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, burden is on the defendants to prove afÏrmatively. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person, constitute adverse possession, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. The person who bases his title on adverse possession, therefore, must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. Where possession could be referred to a lawful title, it will not be considered to be adverse. The reason being that a person whose possession can be 21 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) referred to a lawful title will not be permitted to show that his possession was hostile to another's title. One who holds possession on behalf of another does not by mere denial of that other's title make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute of limitation. Therefore, a person who enters into possession having a lawful title, cannot divest another of that title by pretending that he had no title at all. 15. An occupation of reality is inconsistent with the right of the true owner. Where a person possesses property in a manner in which he is not entitled to possess it, and without anything to show that he possesses it otherwise than an owner (that is, with the intention of excluding all persons from it, including the rightful owner), he is in adverse possession of it. Thus, if A is in possession of a field of B's, he is in adverse possession of it unless there is something to show that his possession is consistent with a recognition of B's title. (See Ward v. Carttar (1866) LR 1 Eq.29). Adverse possession is of two kinds, according as it was adverse from the beginning, or has become so subsequently. Thus, if a mere trespasser takes possession of A's property, and retains it against him, his possession is adverse ab initio. But if A grants a lease of land to B, or B obtains possession of the land as A's bailiff, or guardian, or trustee, his possession can only become adverse by some change in his position. Adverse 22 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) possession not only entitled the adverse possessor, like every other possessor, to be protected in his possession against all who cannot show a better title, but also, if the adverse possessor remains in possession for a certain period of time produces the effect either of barring the right of the true owner, and thus converting the possessor into the owner, or of depriving the true owner of his right of action to recover his property and this although the true owner is ignorant of the adverse possessor being in occupation. 16. xxx xxx xxx 17. 16. xxx xxx xxx 17. According to Pollock, "In common speech a man is said to be in possession of anything of which he has the apparent control or from the use of which he has the apparent powers of excluding others". 18 & 19 xxx xxx xxx 20. It is well recognized proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily means that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner's title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and 23 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former's hostile action.” (ii) In Chatti Konatri Rao and others vs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316, the Hon’ble Apex Court further held as under: “13. What facts are required to prove adverse possession have succinctly been enunciated by this Court in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India and Ors. (2004) 10 SCC 779. It has also been observed that a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour and since such a person is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish necessary facts to establish his adverse possession. Paragraph 11 of the judgment which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows: "11. In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession 24 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina AIR 1964 SC 1254, Parsinni v. Sukhi (1993) 4 SCC 375 and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567) Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has 25 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. [Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr.) v. Raj Kumari Sharma 14. In view of the several authorities of this Court, few whereof have been referred above, what can safely be said that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. It means hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The possession must be open and hostile enough so that it is known by the parties interested in the property. The plaintiff is bound to prove his title as also possession within 12 years and once the plaintiff proves his title, the burden shifts on the defendant to establish that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. Claim by adverse possession has two basic elements i.e. the possession of the defendant should be adverse to the plaintiff and the defendant must continue to remain in possession for a period of 12 years thereafter. 26 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) 15. Animus possidendi as is well known a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. Mere possession does not ripen into possessory title until possessor holds property adverse to the title of the true owner for the said purpose. The person who claims adverse possession is required to establish the date on which he came in possession, nature of possession, the factum of possession, knowledge to the true owner, duration of possession and possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour as he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner and, hence, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish adverse possession. The courts always take unkind view towards statutes of limitation overriding property rights. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law.” 28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its various decisions has held that when there are concurrent findings of fact, the High Courts should not interfere in those findings until and unless those are perverse or without any evidence. In the present case plea as set up by the defendants was required to be proved by the defendants, however, they have failed to do so. 27 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) 29. The pleadings as set up by the present appellants/defendants do not fulfill the parameters as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in order to acquire the title on the basis of adverse possession. Neither there is any averment in the written statement that on which date the defendants came into possession of the suit property, nor it has been mentioned that what is nature of possession and whether the factum of said possession was known to other side. The ingredients that the possession of the defendants was open and undisturbed have also not been proved in the present case. The Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the onus to prove the plea of adverse possession was necessarily on the defendants, but the said plea, though has been taken, but the defendants have failed to prove the same. Plea of adverse possession is always taken against a true owner. Meaning thereby, the defendants have admitted the title of the plaintiffs. Once, the defendants have failed to prove the plea of adverse possession, in that event the only order which could have been passed is decree for vacant possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, 28 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) the Courts below have rightly determined the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and have rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff filed on the basis of title. 30. AfÏdavit as filed by the defendant Ramji, DW-3 clinches the controversy in hand, whereby, it had been stated by the said defendant that they do not accept the plaintiffs to be owners of the suit property. By setting up the defence that they have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession, it is the basic requirement to accept the ownership of opposite side. However, in the present case, in the testimony as made by defendant Ramji, DW-3, he has stated that defendants do not accept the plaintiffs to be owners of the suit property. Consequently, the plea as raised by the defendants have neither been pleaded nor proved and contradictory plea had been taken in order to frustrate the title of the plaintiffs. The plea of adverse possession as set up by the defendants has not been established by them. Both the Courts have concurrently held in favour of plaintiffs/respondents. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants failed to point out any perversity in the 29 ( 2026:HHC:17941 ) impugned judgments and decrees. Therefore, the learned courts below have rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession on the basis of title. 31. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 32. In view of above discussions, the present appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. CMP No. 27613 of 2025. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants/defendants seeks permission to withdraw the instant application filed under Section 151 of the CPC for fixation and recovery of use and occupation charges against the present appellants. Permission granted. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed as withdrawn. (Romesh Verma) Judge 12th May, 2026. (jai)