JUDGMENT K.K. Lahoti, J. Defendant who lost before lower appellate Court has filed this appeal. It was admitted on 7-9-1987 on following substantial question of law:- (i) Whether in the context of facts and circumstances of the case execution of document Ex-P/1 can be said to have been proved in accordance with law. (ii) Whether the decree on adverse possession can be said to have been established in accordance with law in the context of findings recorded by the Courts below? Before considering the contention of the parties, it is necessary to state the facts of the case. Ramavtar filed suit on 18-8-1977 for declaration, permanent injunction. It is pleaded in the plaint that the land Survey No. 166 area 1.02 Decimal of village Billora Tola was converted in new No. 170 area 1.02 Decimal, belonged to Smt. Jhurri wife of late Gappo Ahir, as per settlement of land records of Samvat 1982. After 4 to 5 year of the settlement, Mst. Jhurri entered into Natra marriage to one Sonai son of Banarsi of village Billora Tola, as per customs. But she remains in possession of the land. Defendant Ram Dulare born from the wedlock of Sonai and Jhurri. Sonai and Jhurri both died before 35 and 20 years respectively before of filing of the suit. Defendant alone remained in possession of the land. The defendant was in need of money so he sold the suit land to plaintiff on 8-1-1961 by an ordinary document for a consideration of Rs. 150/-, and after receiving consideration the possession of the land was delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff after purchase of the land constructed four rooms residential house on the land, sink a well, planted mango and guava trees and also improved the land. Because of this development, price of the land increased. The plaintiff developed the land and remained in possession of the land. He has also paid land revenue. Plaintiff being illiterate person did not take care that the land be got mutated in his name but his possession was duly recorded in the revenue records. Before five to six years (of filing suit), there was an exercise for revision of the land records. On the request of plaintiff, defendant consented before the authorities for the transfer of the name and accordingly on 14-12-1971, the plaintiffs name was mutated which was also duly verified. Before five to six years (of filing suit), there was an exercise for revision of the land records. On the request of plaintiff, defendant consented before the authorities for the transfer of the name and accordingly on 14-12-1971, the plaintiffs name was mutated which was also duly verified. The plaintiff and defendant both are close relation but because of the instigation of some villagers, who were having enmity with the plaintiff, the defendant filed an appeal against the order of mutation dated 14-12-1971 before the Collector. The Collector, vide order dated 4-7-1977 cancelled the order of mutation dated 14-12-1971. Thereafter defendant started to claim his rights in the land and on 15-8-1977 tried to reap the crop sown by the plaintiff. The defendant has no right, title or possession over the land and the plaintiff is in continuous, peaceful possession of the land since last 16 years, which is adverse to the defendant who had alienated the land in favour of the plaintiff. Though the Saledeed dated 8-1-1961 is unregistered but the plaintiffs possession is for more than 12 years over the land and has acquired right in the suit land by way of adverse possession. It is also stated by the plaintiff in para 12. B of the plaint that the defendant is bound by his admission in respect of Saledeed dated 8-1-1961 in mutation proceedings and also having knowledge in respect of four constructed houses; well; the planted trees and is stopped from challenging the title of the plaintiff. On the aforesaid grounds the suit was filed. Defendant filed the written statement, in which it is stated that Sonai died 30 years back while Jhurri died 8 years before filing of the suit in the year 1969. Jhurri was in possession of the suit land till her death and after her death, defendant remained in possession till the date of filing of the suit. The defendant neither on 8-1-1961 nor thereafter has sold the land to the plaintiff or has received any consideration. The defendant has never handed over the possession of the land to the plaintiff and if plaintiff has filed any such document then it is a fake or fabricated document and the defendant is not bound with it. The relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is not denied. The defendant has never handed over the possession of the land to the plaintiff and if plaintiff has filed any such document then it is a fake or fabricated document and the defendant is not bound with it. The relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is not denied. It is stated that the plaintiff was not having any land for the construction of the house, plaintiff demanded some land for the construction of the house then the defendant in the year 1965 gave 0.05 Decimal land to the plaintiff but no document was executed because of cordial relation between the plaintiff and defendant. On a part of the land there is house of plaintiff in which he is residing but rest of the land was in possession of the defendant's mother Jurri Bai and after her death in 1969 defendant is in possession of the land till the filing of the suit. The land was improved by the defendant and not by the plaintiff. As the land was never alienated to the plaintiff, there was no question of any consent for mutation of the land in favour of the plaintiff. On 14-12-1971 before Assistant Land Records Officer, Sidhi, defendant neither consented for the mutation nor has deposed his statement. He has also not put his thumb impression on any of the document. The documents has been got prepared by the plaintiff in the office of Assistant Land Records, Sidhi which are not true and did not bear the thumb impression of defendant. On the basis of this, plaintiff did not get any title on the land. On knowing aforesaid fact, defendant filed an appeal before the Collector, Sidhi which was allowed on 4-7-1977 and the order of Assistant Land Record Officer, Sidhi dated 14-12-1971 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to Tehsildar, Gopad Banas for fresh enquiry. It is also denied that the aforesaid appeal was filed at the instance of Fakere, Sunder and Bhaiyalal, on the contrary the appeal was filed by the defendant on knowing aforesaid act of the plaintiff. The defendant is in possession of the land during the lifetime of Jhurri and also after the death of Jhurri since 1969 as the owner of the land. The plaintiff is not in possession of the land except area 0.05 decimal, nor he acquired right and title in the land by way of adverse possession. The defendant is in possession of the land during the lifetime of Jhurri and also after the death of Jhurri since 1969 as the owner of the land. The plaintiff is not in possession of the land except area 0.05 decimal, nor he acquired right and title in the land by way of adverse possession. The document dated 8-1-1961 is forged and fabricated and plaintiff could not get any right and title on the basis of the document. The land area 0.05 decimal is in possession of the plaintiff with the consent of the defendant and the possession is permissible, which cannot be treated as an adverse decision. The document is unstamped and unregistered and is not admissible in evidence. From the perusal of the document, it appears that there is some blurred impression of thumb and on the basis of this, plaintiff cannot get any right. So far as construction of the house, plantation of trees and well is concerned, all these have been done on the aforesaid 0.05 decimal land which was given to the plaintiff because of the relationship. That the plaintiff without the knowledge of defendant has got his name mutated in the revenue record on 14-12-1971 through Assistant Land Records Officer, Sidhi but in fact on the spot, plaintiff was never in possession and the entries in the revenue records are null and void. The trial Court framed 6 issues in the case. The parties examined the witnesses. Plaintiff examined himself as DW-1- PW-2 Govind Singh - attesting witness of saledeed, PW-3 Samwat Singh in respect of possession. The defendant examined himself as DW-1, DW-2 Raghuram, DW-3 Mangal in respect of dispossession of the defendant after issuance of temporary injunction order in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence recorded following findings in the case:- i) The defendant had not sold the suit land on 8-1-1961 by unregistered saledeed for consideration of Rs. 150/- to the plaintiff and had also not handed over possession. ii) That the plaintiff constructed residential house, well and did plantation on the land, not because of saledeed but with the permission by the defendant in this regard. iii) That the defendant had not consented for the mutation in favour of the plaintiff before Assistant Land Records officer. 150/- to the plaintiff and had also not handed over possession. ii) That the plaintiff constructed residential house, well and did plantation on the land, not because of saledeed but with the permission by the defendant in this regard. iii) That the defendant had not consented for the mutation in favour of the plaintiff before Assistant Land Records officer. iv) That the Plaintiff is not in possession of the entire land but he is in possession of land 0.010 hectare for more than 12 years and has acquired right in the land. After recording aforesaid findings the trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiff in respect of 0.010 hectare land, and permanent injunction was also issued in this regard, rest of the suit was dismissed. Plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sidhi. The learned additional District Judge recorded following findings in the case and reversed the judgment of the trial Court:- (a) That the defendant No. 1 has admitted the saledeed (Ex-P/1) in the mutation proceedings (Ex P/2) and this admission on behalf of defendant in respect of saledeed is a material piece of evidence. (b) That the plaintiff is in continuous possession since 1961 on the land, though the saledeed Ex-P/1 is on simple paper and unregistered. The thumb impression is also blurred and cannot be examined by the experts but it will not affect adversely the case of plaintiff. The plaintiffs possession is found proved since 1961 supported by khasra entry of 1961-62 and the defendant has admitted his possession. All the aforesaid facts shows that the plaintiff is in possession of the land though on the basis of simple saledeed but his possession is since 1961 and by way of adverse possession, plaintiff has acquired right and title. (c) That the plaintiff has acquired right by way of adverse possession and defendant's right has come to an end. The plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant. (d) On the aforesaid grounds the appellate Court decreed the suit in respect of entire land area 1.02 hectare of survey No. 166 (new No. 170). The Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the aforesaid judgment and decree on the ground that (i) the saledeed is not proved, (ii) the saledeed was not produced in mutation proceedings and in the proceedings u/s 145. The Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the aforesaid judgment and decree on the ground that (i) the saledeed is not proved, (ii) the saledeed was not produced in mutation proceedings and in the proceedings u/s 145. The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (iii) The scriber of the deed was not examined by the plaintiff in the trial Court, (iv) That the order of mutation has been set aside by the Collector, and respondent cannot take any benefit regarding findings in his favour, (v) That the order was passed merely on the basis of consent while the alleged consent which bears the thumb impression and seriously controverted by appellant, except this there was no other material before the mutation officer for the mutation of the land. The circumstances are suspicious. Ram Dulare challenged the mutation on the ground that no such consent was given by him for the mutation and there is no independent witness to this, and on these grounds the order of mutation was set aside and the case was remitted back by the Collector to the Tehsildar to decide afresh on merits. (vi) That the order which was set aside by the Collector after recording aforesaid findings but the learned appellate Court relied on the alleged admission and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. (vii) The khasra entries also relates to the period after the order of mutation based on consent, when the aforesaid order itself has been set aside then all other consequential orders to this mutation order also goes. (viii) That in the case, there are no specific pleadings in respect of adverse possession. The plaintiff is claiming his possession on the basis of aforesaid deed but this deed was specifically denied by the defendant/appellant. There is close relation between the parties; the appellate Court ought to have considered the case minutely. Though in paragraph 12 of the plaint, plaintiff has pleaded that he is in possession for last 16 years but nothing has been pleaded in respect of any specific overt act of adverse possession or hostile act denying the title of the defendant. Mere possession will not constitute an adverse possession. The plaintiff has to plead and prove adverse possession, its starting point and continuous uninterrupted peaceful possession over the land for a statutory period. Reliance is placed to the Apex Court judgment in S.M. Karim Vs. Mst. Bibi Sakina, . Mere possession will not constitute an adverse possession. The plaintiff has to plead and prove adverse possession, its starting point and continuous uninterrupted peaceful possession over the land for a statutory period. Reliance is placed to the Apex Court judgment in S.M. Karim Vs. Mst. Bibi Sakina, . (ix) That without proving of saledeed and merely on the basis of alleged admission the appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit of respondent. Contending aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant submits that this appeal may be allowed and judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court be set aside and that of trial Court may be restored. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the court below and mainly relying on the admission Ex-P/2 contended that on the basis of the admission Ex P-2, the appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit of respondents. Plaintiff in para 9 of the plaint has specifically pleaded admission and the defendant was well aware in respect of the admission. The admission was recorded by a competent officer having jurisdiction to pass mutation order. The admission was duly proved by the plaintiff and the court below rightly decreed the suit on the basis of saledeed Ex P-1 and the admission Ex. P-2. Reliance is placed to the Apex Court judgment in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale Vs. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and Others, in which it is held:- An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. And in Raja Bhaiya vs. Daulat Singh, 1962 MPLJ 213 in which it is held:- It is pointed out that the admission relied on should have been pleaded so that the appellants could explain it. This contention is based on a misapprehension. We find from the record that when the appellants amended paragraph 5 of their objection by an application, dated 25-7-1958, the decree-holders also amended paragraph 6 of their reply by application, dated 25-8-1958. That amendment was allowed by the executing Court (vide order-sheet, dated 25-8-1958). This was before issues were framed. The appellants thus had full notice of the admission which was sought to be used against them. It was not necessary for the decree-holders to put the admission to them for explanation, but it was for them to explain it. That amendment was allowed by the executing Court (vide order-sheet, dated 25-8-1958). This was before issues were framed. The appellants thus had full notice of the admission which was sought to be used against them. It was not necessary for the decree-holders to put the admission to them for explanation, but it was for them to explain it. The position of a party differs from that of a witness in this respect. While a witness has to be contradicted u/s 145 of the Evidence Act by confronting him with the admission, a party has to explain it himself. All that is necessary is that he must have notice of it at the stage of pleadings from the pleadings or documents filed. The requirements were satisfied in this case and it must be held that the admission remains unexplained. This is an additional circumstance to hold that a certificate was issued. We agree with the findings of the Courts below which has been accepted by the learned single Judge that a certificate u/s 15(1) was issued in 1936 against the decree-holder. To consider the contention of the parties firstly the document Ex P-2 mutation order and alleged admission may be seen. Ex P-2 is a document of land records in which it is stated that the defendant Ram Dulare admitted factum of the sale of the land in favour of plaintiff. This admission alleged to be recorded on 14-12-1971 but there is no other evidence to prove it. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1. He has not proved the saledeed and admission. The saledeed is on simple paper and not a registered document. It was not permitted to be proved as a saledeed but for collateral purposes it was admitted in evidence. The document Ex P-2 though has been produced but it is not proved by the defendant nor he has stated in his statement that the said statement was recorded in his presence by the concerned officer. In the written statement, defendant has specifically denied to such admission. When the admission was denied by the appellant in the written statement itself, then the plaintiff ought to have proved such admission by cogent evidence. PW-3 is a witness of possession over the land. No witness has been examined by the plaintiff to prove such document nor he examined the officer who recorded the admission of the appellant. When the admission was denied by the appellant in the written statement itself, then the plaintiff ought to have proved such admission by cogent evidence. PW-3 is a witness of possession over the land. No witness has been examined by the plaintiff to prove such document nor he examined the officer who recorded the admission of the appellant. The order based on the aforesaid admission has been found to be suspicious by the Collector in his order Ex P-9. Appellant being illiterate person puts his thumb impression. The saledeed Ex P-1 bears a blurred thumb impression. Though it is stated by the plaintiff that the said document was written by a petition-writer. When a document is written by a petition writer then it is expected that he will affix the thumb impression with the help of ink pad, but the document Ex P-1 which bears the blurred thumb impression with the help of ink and does not appears to be impressed with the help of ink pad. The aforesaid circumstances are very suspicious. The witness Govind Singh Chouhan has been examined to prove the saledeed but he has not stated anything about the alleged admission. Even from the perusal of Ex P-2 no reference is found in respect of the saledeed. Why the saledeed was not produced at the time when the mutation was applied. This mutation was affected only on the basis of admission. It also does not refer that there is some document transferring the land in favour of the plaintiff. In para 8 of PW-1 he has also admitted that in the proceedings u/s 145 Criminal Procedure Code this document was not produced before the S.D.M. He has also admitted that before the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, this document was not produced. There is no explanation on the part of Plaintiff why he has not produced this document before the aforesaid authorities. This document was the basis of mutation on land, in the mutation proceedings. This document ought to have been produced by the plaintiff before the authority. The authority erred in allowing mutation merely on the basis of alleged admission though it was applied on the basis of Saledeed. All the aforesaid circumstances creates doubt in respect of document Ex P-1. The mutation order Ex P-2 has already been set aside by the Collector. This document ought to have been produced by the plaintiff before the authority. The authority erred in allowing mutation merely on the basis of alleged admission though it was applied on the basis of Saledeed. All the aforesaid circumstances creates doubt in respect of document Ex P-1. The mutation order Ex P-2 has already been set aside by the Collector. In that order also nothing finds place in respect of the saledeed Ex P-1. If such a document was in existence at the time of mutation proceedings Ex P-2 on 14-12-1971, why it was not produced before the authorities, nothing has been explained. The concerned officer has not been examined to prove the factum that such statement was recorded by him. Though aforesaid order is in official proceedings and a presumption can be raised in its favour. But when such order itself has been set aside by the Collector treating it as suspicious then it was the duty of Plaintiff to examine such officer to remove the clouds. The alleged admission in Ex P-2 cannot be believed in the aforesaid circumstances. The Plaintiff who has failed to prove the document Ex-P-1 and P-2 cannot take benefit of so called admission which has been found suspicious by the Collector by order Annexure P-9. The Plaintiff has also not pleaded adverse possession in the case as required under the law. No overt act has been alleged and proved in the case showing hostility to the title of the plaintiff. Though the appellate Court has found that since the date of execution of saledeed Ex P-1 dated 8-1-1961, the plaintiff is in possession of the land and has acquired title by way of adverse possession but aforesaid findings are perverse and in the absence of specific pleadings in this regard, plaintiff s suit cannot be decreed on the basis of adverse possession. The appellate Court erred in reversing well, considered judgment of the trial Court, who considering all the aforesaid circumstances found that the documents Ex P-1 and P-2 are not proved. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court is set aside and suit of plaintiff/respondent is dismissed. The appellate Court erred in reversing well, considered judgment of the trial Court, who considering all the aforesaid circumstances found that the documents Ex P-1 and P-2 are not proved. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court is set aside and suit of plaintiff/respondent is dismissed. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the appellant made a statement on behalf of defendant that appellant herein, himself had permitted plaintiff to construct a house on the land, though initially 0.05 decimal land was given but the plaintiff has constructed house on 0.010 decimal land and the defendant will not take possession of the aforesaid land from the plaintiff/respondent being close relation and invested money in raising construction on the land. In view of the aforesaid statement, while dismissing the suit of plaintiff/respondent, the statement of defendant is recorded that plaintiff shall continue in possession of land area 0.010 decimal on which he has raised construction, sink a well and planted trees. Except this area, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to remain in possession of the land and appellant who has alleged that during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff/respondent dispossess him in the garb of temporary injunction shall be entitled to get back the possession of remaining land from plaintiff/respondent, through the process of Court by executing this decree, if plaintiff does not deliver back possession to the plaintiff within 90 days from today. So far mesne profits or damages are concerned appellant shall be entitled to take appropriate proceedings or steps in this regard and liberty is granted to him. With the aforesaid direction this appeal is allowed. The appellant shall be entitled for the cost of this appeal, which is quantified to Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) payable by the respondents. Final Result : Allowed