* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 373 OF 2007 Shri. Janu Mahadev Bavkar since deceased by his Lrs Smt. Nirmala Janu Bavkar & anr. ..........Appellants/Orig.Plffs. V/S. 1. Smt.Malati Madhusudan Tendulkar & ors. .............Respondents ---------- Ms. Alpa Javeri, adv. for appellants. Ms. Preeti Walimbe, adv.for respondents no.1 to 3. CORAM :- SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED :- 3RD DECEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of fact as regards the title of the suit property of respondents no.1 to 5 and the claim made by the appellants and respondent no.6 of having become the owners of the suit property by adverse possession. The impugned order of the first appellate court confirms the decree in the suit directing the appellants to hand over possession of the suit land to respondents no.1 to 5. The appellants * 2 * admittedly executed the sale-deed dated 30th September, 1955 in favour of respondents no.1 to 5. It is sought to be contended in the written statement by the appellants by way of defence to the suit for possession thereof, that the sale-deed is a bogus document. However, they have not filed any proceedings to challenge the sale-deed. Therefore, the defence based on the challenge mentioned in the written statement to the sale-deed has been rightly appreciated by the courts below. 3. The alternative plea taken up by the appellants is of having become the owner of the suit property by adverse possession. Since, the appellants have disputed the title of respondents no.1 to 5 in the written statement, the courts below have rightly observed that for claiming title by adverse possession, it is necessary that the person must first admit the title of the person against whom, the plea is set up. It has been further observed on merits that there is no evidence as regards the exact time of possession and that the same had become hostile or adverse to that of the owner. It appears that respondent no.6 in his evidence, admitted that the grocery shop in the said hut had been since the year 1992 which evidence was in contradiction with the evidence of appellant no.1. 4. It is thus sen that the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the courts below, are supported by the evidence on record. The findings are possible and reasonable findings. Therefore, the same cannot be disturbed in * 3 * the present proceedings. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration of the court. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]