1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 8 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 159 of 2010 Murlidhar S/o Pralhad Pansare, & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Shivaji S/o Narsing Bhosale & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for appellants Shri S.R. Pawar, Advocate h/f Shri Sachin Deshmukh, for respondent No. 1 CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15h SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : The present respondent No.1 had instituted a suit for possession against the present appellants in respect of the suit property. The case of the plaintiffs was based on title, having purchased the suit property from one Prabhakar. The defendants took dual stand in 2 the written statement, and in the counter claim contending that the defendants were the tenants of the erst-while owners. They also contended that they have become owners by adverse possession. It seems that at the time of Trial, the defendants elected to proceed with the defense of adverse possession. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff is owner of the property and the defendants have failed to prove the theory of adverse possession. The Trial Court decreed the suit and dismissed the counter claim. 2. Shri V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that defendants are entitled to raise in-consistant pleas, and having raised various pleas, the Trial Court was under obligation to decide the whole case based on the various claims put-forth by the defendants. The Trial Court, did not frame issue of tenancy. Even the Appellate Court did not consider this aspect. As such, according to him, there is manifest error committed by the Courts below. 3 3. It is settled law that the defendants can raise alternate pleas and also in-consistent pleas. But at the time of Trial a party is to elect a particular plea. In the present matter the defendants had not only taken different pleas but had taken mutually destructive pleas. On one hand the defendants claimed to be tenant of the erst-while owner and on the other hand, they claimed to have become owner by adverse possession. Both the pleas cannot go hand in hand. As such, it seems that the defendants elected to proceed with the theory of acquiring title by adverse possession. Both the Courts have found that the defendants could not satisfy the ingredients necessary to prove adverse possession. The Courts below on appreciation of evidence has held that the plaintiff is owner of the property. Even defendants have admitted title of Prabhakar i.e. predecessor in title of the plaintiff. 4. In the light of the above, no substantial question of law is involved in the Second Appeal, as such the Second Appeal is 4 dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 5. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal,Civil Application No. 159 of 2010 does not survive, and the same is disposed of accordingly. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM*8.10SA