-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.1160 OF 2005 APPEAL NO.1160 OF 2005 APPEAL NO.1160 OF 2005 Shabbir Hazarat Sharikmaslat ...Appellant vs. Kulsumbi Mahamad Hanif Mushriff (since deceased through L.Rs.) & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Vaibhav Sugdare for the Appellant Mr.S.G.Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.1B to 1F, 2B, 3C and 3D. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : FEBRUARY 20, 2008 : FEBRUARY 20, 2008 : FEBRUARY 20, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant. The Appellant is the original defendant No.6. The first to third Respondents are the original plaintiffs. The decree of declaration holding that the first to third defendants are the owners of the suit property has been passed by the trial court and the said decree has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. 2. The case of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 is that one Babalal was the exclusive owner of the property and that they have inherited the suit property from the said Babalal. One of the plea raised by the contesting defendants was of adverse possession. The plea of adverse possession has been negatived by both the courts below. 3. The submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that initial burden of establishing the title was always on the original plaintiffs. He invited my attention to the -2- discussion on the issue of title of the original plaintiffs and submitted that they have not discharged the burden on them. His submission is that the as the plaintiffs have not discharged their burden, the exclusive title of the original plaintiffs could not have been accepted. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. It is apparent from the Judgments of both the courts below and especially the Appellate Court that the Appellant and other contesting defendants pressed into service the plea of adverse possession. The points for determination framed by the Appellate Court show that the Appellant had argued the plea of adverse possession. In so far as the said plea is concerned, there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below against the Appellant. The said concurrent findings are based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record. 5. After having raised the plea of adverse possession thereby admitting the title of the original plaintiffs and after having failed to establish the plea of adverse possession, now the Appellant cannot go back and say that the title is not established by the original plaintiffs. 6. No substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. -3- JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE