1 sa196 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.196 OF 2011 Nivrutti Yashwant Walunj ...Appellant vs. Dy.Director, Land Records, Pune Region & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.U.B.Nighot for the appellant None for the respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 14, 2011 P.C.: 1 The appellant is the original plaintiff. The appellant-original plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and possession which has been dismissed by the Trial Court and the decree has been confirmed in appeal. 2 The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that a plea of adverse possession was specifically raised in the plaint, but the Trial Court failed to frame an issue on adverse possession. He submitted that the Appellate Court discarded the plea of adverse possession only on the ground that the evidence was not adduced on the plea of adverse possession. He submitted that the Deputy Director of Land Records had no jurisdiction to record a finding that the suit property vests in the State Government as there was no enquiry held under section 20 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. 2 sa196 3 I have considered the submissions. It appears that the appellant claimed declaration of ownership on the basis of title and in the alternative, his contention was that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. The Trial Court did not frame any issue on the plea of adverse possession and the issue framed was on the basis of title claimed by the appellant as the owner. The contention of the appellant is that he was the owner of old C.T.S.No 319 which was assigned new C.T.S.No 903-904. That case was negatived by the Trial Court. Out of two alternative reliefs claimed in the plaint, it was necessary for the appellant to choose one at the time of trial. 4 The evidence was adduced on the footing that the appellant was the owner and therefore, before the Trial Court, the appellant proceeded on the footing that he was the title holder. This shows that the plea of adverse possession was not pressed into service before the Trial Court. Hence, the appellant did not make any grievance regarding the failure to frame issue on adverse possession during the pendency of the suit. After having failed in the Trial Court, in the Appeal, the plea of adverse possession was agitated. The moment the issue of adverse possession is agitated, it amounts to giving up the plea of title as the owner. There was no evidence adduced of adverse possession. Therefore, the Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the appeal. 5 As the appellant must fail on his own showing, 3 sa196 there is no question of considering the issue jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Land Records to record the finding of issue of title. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE