P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) -DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 have filed this appeal against a reversing decision of the lower appellate court declaring right, title and interest of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 over the disputed land and confirming his possession and granting an order of injunction. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff's case, the disputed property stood recorded in the name of the Sankari Bewa who died about forty years back prior to the filing of the suit leaving behind her only son Baidhar who had three sons. Harmohan the father of defendant No. 1, Baburam the father of defendant No. 2 and madhusudan defendant No. 3. On the death of Harmohan and Baburam, Madhusudan became the "karta" of the famly and subsequently sold the disputed property by a registered sale deed dated 5. 11. 1962 for legal necessity and the plaintiff remained in possession of the disputed land. Thereafter, the plaintiff got his name mutated in the mutation proceeding. Defendants 1 and 2 filed an application for mutation in November, 1974 and disturbed the possession of the plaintiff in the month of December, 1974. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession or in the alternative recovery of possession. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 3 remained ex parte. Defendants 1 and 2 in their joint written statement claimed that Sankari Bewa had left behind a daughter, named Rambha who died about thirty years back leaving behind her three sons, Harmohan, Baburam and madhusudan. The validity of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was challenged by them. ( 4 ) ORIGINALLY the suit was dismissed by the trial court and in appeal, the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal. Thereafter, the plaintiff amended the plaint and claimed title in the alternative by way of adverse possession. It was pleaded that Rambha had died prior to Hindu Succession Act, 1956. leaving behind her three sons as well as a daughter, Radha. It was further claimed that if it is found that Radha was the successor of rambha in respect of the disputed property, the plaintiff had perfected title by adverse possession. Defendants 1 and 2 in their additional written statement claimed that Rambha died in the year 1969. leaving behind her three sons as well as a daughter, Radha. It was further claimed that if it is found that Radha was the successor of rambha in respect of the disputed property, the plaintiff had perfected title by adverse possession. Defendants 1 and 2 in their additional written statement claimed that Rambha died in the year 1969. Radha who was added as defendant No. 4 denied the plaint allegations and claimed that her mother Rambha had expired in the year 1969. ( 5 ) THE trial court after framing some new issues held that Rambha died before the Hindu succession Act came into force and further held that the plaintiff had acquired l/3rd interest over the disputed property by virtue of purchase from defendant No. 3. The plea of the plaintiff regarding acquisition of title by adverse possession over the balance 2/3rd share of the suit property, was negatived against the aforesaid decision and decree, no appeal was preferred by any of the defendants. However, the plaintiff preferred appeal and claimed that his title should be declared in respect of the entire suit property. The appelate court on fresh appraisal of the evidence on record held that Rambha had expired before the Hindu Succession Act came into force and since the property was "stree Dhan" property of Rambha, on her death her daughter was the owner, but'defendants 1, 2 and 3 remained in possession of the disputed land and, thereafter, defendant No. 3 purporting to be the "karta" of the family sold the entire property to the plaintiff on 5. 11. 1962. It was further held that since the plaintiff continued in possession by virtue of the illegal sale deed for more than twelve years by the time of filing of the suit, he had acquired title by adverse possession. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in full. The defendants 1 and 2 have filed this appeal challenging the aforesaid decision of the lower appellate court. ( 6 ) IN the present appeal, the appellants have raised two contentions. According to them the lower appellate court should not have rejected the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants. The defendants 1 and 2 have filed this appeal challenging the aforesaid decision of the lower appellate court. ( 6 ) IN the present appeal, the appellants have raised two contentions. According to them the lower appellate court should not have rejected the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants. It is further submitted that the certified copy of the Death Register indicates that Rambha had expired in the year 1969 and by virtue of "the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Hindu Succession act, Rambha had acquired absolute right over the disputed property and, therefore, on her death all the defendants including Radha became the co-sharers of rambha and succeeded to the property. It is further submitted that the plaintiff cannot claim adverse possession as he had purchased from one of the co-sharers. ( 7 ) THE appellate court rejected the application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC on the ground that no explanation had been furnished as to why the document could not be produced in the trial court. The aforesaid reasonings of the lower appellate court appears to be correct. Moreover, defendants 1 and 2 in their original written statement had claimed that Rambha had expired about thirty years back but in their subsequent additional written statement they took an inconsistent stand by claiming that Rambha died in the year 1969. Moreover, the trial court coming to a conclusion that Rambha had expired prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, held that defendants 1, 2 and 3 had acquired interest by adverse possession. Though such finding and decree was against defendant No. 4. no appeal had been preferred by defendant no. 4, herself, either challenging that part of the decree which was based on the finding that Rambha had expired prior to the Hindu succession Act, 1956. The appellate court has also referred to the oral evidence on record and came to a conclusion that Rambha had expired prior to the Hindu Succession act, 1956. Having regard to all these aspects, there is no scope for arriving at a different finding in this 'second appeal. The appellate court has also referred to the oral evidence on record and came to a conclusion that Rambha had expired prior to the Hindu Succession act, 1956. Having regard to all these aspects, there is no scope for arriving at a different finding in this 'second appeal. ( 8 ) IN view of the finding that Rambha had expired prior to Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the further finding of the lower appellate court that her daughter, Radha alone succeeded to the disputed property which was the 'stree dhan' property of Rambha, appears to be correct. However, admittedly, the three defendants remained in possession after the death of Rambha and thereafter, the property was sold by defendant No. 3 in November, 1961, whereafter the plaintiff remained in possession for more than twelve years on the basis of the illegal sale deed, which was definitely not binding on Radha. Since the plaintiff continued in possession for more than twelve years on the basis of invalid transaction, his possession was adverse not only to radha but also to defendants 1 and 2 from the inception. The appellate court has held that the plaintiff continued in such possession till filing of the suit in the year 1975. Such conclusion is essentially a finding of fact which is binding in second appeal. Thereafter, the conclusion of the appellate court that the plaintiff acquired right, title and interest by adverse possession is sustained. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that a purchaser from a co-share cannot claim right by adverse possession as against other co-sharers, is not applicable inasmuch as, the defendants were not co-sharers in respect of the disputed property but were occupants and Radhamani, defendant No. 4, was the real owner. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed. .