JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. The appellants who are legal representatives of original defendant Moosan, being dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court decreeing the suit of respondents who are legal representatives of original plaintiff Harihar has preferred this second appeal under section 100, Civil Procedure Code. 2. Original plaintiff is Harihar and original defendant is Moosan, both of them are dead and present respondents are legal representatives of plaintiff and appellants are legal representatives of defendant. 3. The admitted facts are that one Smt. Murli Sharan Kumari wife of Dhruv Narain Singh was the Bhumiswami of khasra No. 503/1 and Dhruv Narain Singh was the Bhumiswami of survey No. 501/2974/1. These two lands the description whereof has been described in plaint is the subject matter of suit. This is also an admitted fact that the land belonging to Dhruv Narain was obtained by him in partition. This is also an admitted fact that after 1972 defendant Moosan initiated proceeding under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code before Sub Divisional Magistrate and Sessions Court and in pursuance to those proceeding, possession of suit land was delivered to defendant Moosan. Since then he (Moosan) is possessing the disputed land and after his death his legal representatives who are present appellants are in possession. 4. The suit of plaintiff Harihar is that the disputed land was obtained by Dhruv Narain Singh in partition and since after partition he is possessing the disputed land in his Bhumiswami right. He sold the suit land by registered sale deed dated 17-3-1966 for a consideration of Rs. 2509/- to original plaintiff Harihar and possession was also delivered to him. Thereafter in the year 1968 plaintiff Harihar purchased some more lands from Dhruv Narain and Kunj Bihari. There was some dispute between Dhurv Narain and Kunj Bihari, as a result of which they gave threat to possess the disputed land, as a result of which plaintiff initiated proceeding under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code before SDM. On 23-5-1969 SDM passed order in favour of plaintiff, as a result of which possession was delivered to him. 5. In the year 1971 along with certain other lands, the suit property was attached by Civil Judge Class-II, Baidhan in some execution case against Dhruv Narain and in that execution case plaintiff Harihar submitted objections which were allowed and ultimately on 7-1-1972 the suit property was released from attachment. 5. In the year 1971 along with certain other lands, the suit property was attached by Civil Judge Class-II, Baidhan in some execution case against Dhruv Narain and in that execution case plaintiff Harihar submitted objections which were allowed and ultimately on 7-1-1972 the suit property was released from attachment. In the year 1975 when plaintiff submitted application for mutation, at that time he came to know that suit land bearing survey No. 503/1 is of Murli Sharan Kumari who is the wife of Dhruv Narain Singh. In order to avoid any controversy though plaintiff already purchased survey No. 503 vide registered sale deed dated 17-3-1966 from Dhruv Narain Singh, he bought survey No. 503/1 from Smt. Murli Sharan Kumari, the wife of Dhruv Narain Singh along with some other lands vide registered sale deed dated 12-5-1975. Thereafter the suit lands were also mutated in the name of plaintiff. The defendants somehow in the year 1972 in collusion with Patwari got his name entered and revenue record showing his possession and thereafter he under the false pretext of having purchased suit property from Dhruv Narain Singh initiated proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code before Sub Divisional Magistrate. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate as well as Sessions Court found possession of defendant Moosan, as a result of which he was put in possession of suit property. According to the plaint averments, plaintiff is the sole Bhumiswami of the disputed property and defendant Moosan had no right, title and interest over it and on the basis of a forged sale deed, he had not acquired any right. In this manner plaintiff has filed suit for declaration of his Bhumiswami right and for possession. 6. On going through written statement filed by defendant Moosan, it is gathered that he had admitted the fact that in partition lands were obtained by Dhruv Narain. Therefore according to defendant Dhruv Narain executed a Patta of survey No. 503/1 in the name of his wife Smt. Murli Sharan Kumari. The stand of defendant in the written statement is that Dhruv Narain by acting as Karta Khandan of family executed an unregistered sale deed in his favour on 10-7-1965 for a consideration of Rs. 3500/- and transferred the land to him. According to the defendant since possession was also delivered to him, therefore, his rights are protected under section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 7. 3500/- and transferred the land to him. According to the defendant since possession was also delivered to him, therefore, his rights are protected under section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 7. Though in written statement defendant has asserted his right of Bhumiswami on the basis of title on suit lands but in special pleas of his written statement, he has also setforth the defence of adverse possession. According to him, he is possessing the disputed land since 10-7-1965 when unregistered sale deed was executed in his favour and his possession is more than 12 years, therefore he had acquired Bhumiswami right by adverse possession. 8. Trial Court came to hold that the lands in question were sold by Dhruv Narain Singh on 17-3-1966 to plaintiffs, it further came to hold that possession of defendant is protected by virtue of shield provided to defendant under section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act. The further finding of the trial Court is that plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession and suit of plaintiff is also time barred. On these grounds the trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiff. 9. The legal representatives of plaintiff Harihar filed first appeal and the Appellate Court by impugned judgment and decree reversed the judgment and decree passed by trial Court and decreed the suit of plaintiff. 10. This second appeal was admitted on 7-7-1992 on following substantial questions of law : (1) Whether the lower Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court after having concurred with its finding that the predecessor-in-title of the appellants and purchased the suit land by an unregistered sale deed dated 10-7-1965 and he and his successors-in-title were in possession thereof? (2) Whether the lower Appellate Court further committed an error in holding that the appellants and their predecessors-in-title had not perfected their title by adverse possession? (3) Whether the lower Appellate Court also committed an error in holding that the possession of the appellants over the suit land was not protected under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act? Substantial question of law No. 1 and 2 : 11. The trial Court though dismissed the suit of plaintiff but, while deciding issue No. 1, categorically held and decided that Dhruv Narain Singh vide registered sale deed dated 17-3-1966 (Ex. Substantial question of law No. 1 and 2 : 11. The trial Court though dismissed the suit of plaintiff but, while deciding issue No. 1, categorically held and decided that Dhruv Narain Singh vide registered sale deed dated 17-3-1966 (Ex. P-8) sold the property to plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 3500/- . The question is whether defendants had acquired bhumiswami right by adverse possession. The defendant has given starting point of his possession which is 10-7-1965. On this date according to him he bought the suit land through unregistered sale deed (Ex. D-9). The question to be decided is whether uninterruptly defendant is possessing the suit land from this date and acquired right of adverse possession. 12. On going through written statement, it is revealed that right from beginning defendant is establishing his bhumiswami right on suit land by virtue of unregistered sale deed executed in his favour by Dhruv Narain Singh on 10-7-1965. However, in special pleas, he has setforth the plea of adverse possession without pleading essential requirement to constitute adverse possession. The plea which has been set forth by him is in very casual manner, it would be appropriate at this juncture to re-write para 15 of his written Statement where the defendant has setforth his plea of adverse possession. 13. On going through para 15 one can safely say that indeed defendant is raising plea of limitation as, according to him, the suit has been filed after 12 years of his possession. In very casual manner he has pleaded that he had acquired right by way of adverse possession without pleading that he was possessing the lands in question as bhumiswami in the knowledge of plaintiff continuously for more than 12 years etc. Thus, there is total lack of essential ingredients in order to constitute a plea of adverse possession under the law. In absence of specific plea in that regard, court cannot upheld the plea of adverse possession. Apart from this, when the defendant has set forth his entire case claiming his title on the basis of unregistered sale deed dated 10-7-1965 executed by Dhruv Narain Singh in his favour, though he can set up plea of adverse possession in alternative but while adducing the evidence he is required to choose a specific defence. Apart from this, when the defendant has set forth his entire case claiming his title on the basis of unregistered sale deed dated 10-7-1965 executed by Dhruv Narain Singh in his favour, though he can set up plea of adverse possession in alternative but while adducing the evidence he is required to choose a specific defence. Since the entire endeavour has been put by defendant to prove his title of bhumiswami right through unregistered sale deed in his favour he cannot, under the law, pray for establishing his right on the basis of adverse possession. 14. Even otherwise the plea of adverse possession has not at all been proved for the reasons to follow : (i) After purchasing the suit property plaintiff was having possession over it. Ex. P-1 is the order of Civil Judge Class-U, Baidhan in case No. 72/70 MJC Harihar vs. Babu Ram and Dhruv Narain in which on 7-1-1972 the application to release the suit property from attachment by plaintiff was allowed ; (ii) Ex. P-6 is the order dated 31-12-1975 of Tahsildar Mutating the name of plaintiff Harihar on suit land; (iii) Ex. P-7 his sale deed executed by Smt. Murli Sharan Kumari in favour of plaintiff Harihar alienating survey No. 503/1 which is a part of suit land along with some other lands, this sale deed is a registered sale deed and was executed on 12-5-1975 and in the recital delivery of possession has been mentioned; (iv) Ex. P-8 is the sale deed executed by Dhruv Narain Singh in favour of plaintiff to Harihar selling the disputed land to him on 17-3-1966 and delivering possession to him; (v) Ex. P-9 is khasra panchashala of the year 1968-69 showing the entry of registered sale deed of suit land in favour of plaintiff Harihar; (vi) Ex. P-1 1 is an important document. This is an order dated 23-5-1969 passed by SDM, Singroli under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code deciding the case in favour of plaintiff and holding that plaintiff was in possession and since he has been dispossessed, possession be delivered to him. Since defendants are claiming possession through Dhruv Narain Singh and if the possession of Dhruv Narain Singh is found to be disturbed then defendant who is claiming title under him, his possession is also cannot be said to be uninterrupted. 15. Since defendants are claiming possession through Dhruv Narain Singh and if the possession of Dhruv Narain Singh is found to be disturbed then defendant who is claiming title under him, his possession is also cannot be said to be uninterrupted. 15. Indeed First Appellate Court in very detail in para 20 onwards has dealt this aspect and came to hold that it is not proved that defendant was possessing the suit land prior to 12 years of the date of the filing of the suit. The finding arrived at by First Appellate Court is a pure finding of fact which is based on appreciation of evidence and I do not want to deviate from the reasonings assigned by First Appellate Court as the Learned Counsel for appellant could not point out any infirmity in the judgment, further he could not point out that the judgment is perverse. The substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2 are thus answered accordingly. Substantial question of law No. 3 16. I shall now deal substantial question of law No. 3. In order to substantiate the doctrine of part performance, it was incumbent upon defendant to show that he is in possession of the suit property. I have already discussed hereinabove that it is not proved that continuously defendant was in possession and his possession was already uninterrupted in between. Apart from this, nowhere it has been setforth by defendant that the transaction which took place between Dhruv Narain and defendant Moosan was in the knowledge of plaintiff. In this view of the matter, the Appellate Court did not commit any error in placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Hemraj vs. Rustomji, AIR 1953 SC 503 and held that defendant is not entitled for the benefit of section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. Apart from this since Dhruv Narain Singh was not the owner of survey No. 503/1 and therefore he could not have sold it to defendant. Thus, defendant is also not entitled for the protection provided under section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act. The substantial question of law No. 3 is answered accordingly. 17. In the result since this appeal has no force, the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.