Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—These two appeals are filed by original plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No. 101/1971 and 103/1971, which were heard and decided by the leaned Civil Judge (J.D.) Kalol by judgment and order dated 29th October, 1977. The learned Trial Judge was pleased to allow Regular Civil Suit No. 101/1971 and directed the defendant to deliver the vacant peaceful possession of the suit land bearing Survey No. 1136 admeasuring about 0 gunthas and 27 Acres situated in the village Soja of Kalol taluka to the plaintiff. The learned Judge was also pleased to order the payment of mesne profit from the date of the institution of the suit till delivery of possession of the suit land with 6% interest p.a. The learned Judge was pleased to decree the suit with costs. 1.1. Similarly, Regular Civil Suit No. 103/1971 was also allowed and the defendant was directed to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit land bearing Survey No. 1134 admeasuring about 0 Acres and 18 gunthas situated in village Soja of Taluka Kalol to the plaintiff. The learned Judge was pleased to order that the defendant shall pay the mesne profits to the plaintiff from the date of institution of the suit till delivery of the possession of the suit land with 6% interest p.a. The learned Judge was pleased to decree the suit with costs. The learned trial Judge had framed the issues which are as under: (1) Whether plaintiffs are owners of the suit land? (2) Whether defendants are in illegal possession of the suit land? (3) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get possession of the suit land? (4) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get mesne profits? (5) Whether suits is time bared? (6) What order and decree? The learned trial Judge was pleased to answer issues No. 1 to 4 in affirmative whereas issue No. 5 in negative and passed the final order which is referred to herein above. 1.2. The learned Trial Judge after setting out the case of the plaintiff and the defendant discussed the evidence led before him in detail in Paragraphs No. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 for issues No. 1 to 4 and in Para 13 for issue No. 5. The learned Judge also discussed the question of mesne profits in issue No. 4. 2. The learned Judge also discussed the question of mesne profits in issue No. 4. 2. The defendant being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Judge preferred Regular Civil Appeals No. 151 of 1977 and 152 of 1977 before the First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Judge framed issues in paragraph No. 2 which reads as under: (1) Is it proved by the plaintiffs that they are the owner of the agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 1134 and 1136, situated at village Soja, Taluka: Kalol? (2) Is it proved by the defendant in both the Suits 101/71 and 103/71 that he has Survey Nos. 1134 and 1136 by adverse possession? (3) Is it proved by the defendant that the lower court had illegally decreed the aforesaid two suit? (4) What order? 3. The learned First Appellate Judge was pleased to answer issues No. 1 to 3 in affirmative and then passed the final order whereby the learned First Appellate Judge was pleased to allow both the Regular Civil Appeals and quashed the judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 101/1971 and 103/1971 by the learned Trial Judge. However, the learned First Appellate Judge was pleased to order that the parties shall bear their own costs throughout. 4. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by allowing the appeals has approached this Court by filing the present second appeals. 5. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant. 6. Learned Advocate for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Trial Judge was right in decreeing the suit and holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and that being so the defendant is in illegal possession of the suit land and the plaintiff being owner of the land is entitled to get the suit land. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant were rightly held to be entitled to the mesne profits. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the substantial question on which the second appeals are admitted, which are as under: (1) Whether the document mark 14/2 exhibited at the appellate stage is properly proved to show the sale in favour of the respondents. (2) Whether the respondents were in permissive possession of the lands as tenants and not as owner. (3) Whether the respondents have proved adverse possession. 6.1. (2) Whether the respondents were in permissive possession of the lands as tenants and not as owner. (3) Whether the respondents have proved adverse possession. 6.1. Learned Advocate for the appellant further submitted that these second appeals be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court be set aside and the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court be restored. Learned Advocate for the appellant invited attention of this Court to the relevant discussion in the trial Court judgment, more particularly, in paragraph 10 wherein she highlighted appreciation of evidence of P.W. 2 Mathurji Motiji at Exh. 55. The relevant part which reads as under: “PW 2 Mathurji Motijis the plaintiff No. 1/2 in the suit and at Exh. 55 similarly deposes that in his village Mohanji Rachhodji Saluji Vaghaji and Bhikhaji Madhaji were Chokiyats and each of them were 12 bighas of land and his father used to get the land cultivated though the defendant Atjaji and Jesaji Bhalaji by paying labour charges, that plaintiffs and Motiji were collecting produced of the suit land that Motiji Mohanji was paying taxed relating to the suit lands. In his cross examination he admits that the plaintiffs are living separate at different places. He admits that the plaintiffs no evidence to prove payment of taxes P.W. 3 Meraji Mohanji at Exh. 56 supports the plaintiffs.” 7. The learned Advocate for the appellant is not able to dislodge the admission made by P.W. 3 Meraji Mohanji in Exh. 56 during his cross-examination, wherein he has admitted, that, defendant is cultivating three pieces of land since many years.” (emphasis supplied). 8. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that voluminous documentary evidence was led before the learned Trial Judge showing the payment of various taxes and that on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence led before the learned Trial Judge, the learned Trial Judge was pleased to decree the suits. 9. Learned Advocate for the appellants relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Associated Hotels of India vs. Ranjit Singh reported in AIR 1968 SC 933 . Learned Advocate for the appellant pressed into service Head Note ‘C’. 9. Learned Advocate for the appellants relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Associated Hotels of India vs. Ranjit Singh reported in AIR 1968 SC 933 . Learned Advocate for the appellant pressed into service Head Note ‘C’. As the documents produced at Mark 14/2 is not considered for the purpose of deciding the question of ownership, in favour of the defendant, the said judgment is of no help to the appellant. 9.1. Learned Advocate for the appellant also relied upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Champabaty vs. Bibijibun and Anr. reported in ILR 4 Cal. 213. Learned Advocate for the appellant pressed into service the aforesaid judgment in support of his submission that the appellate Court has no authority to direct the reception of an unstamped document. 10. As the matter stand, the said document is not taken into consideration for deciding the question of ownership. Hence this judgment does not render any assistance to the learned Advocate for the appellant. 11. On behalf of the opponent-the original defendants Mr. V.C. Desai, learned Advocate submitted that the learned First Appellate Judge was right when he decided all the three issues, in affirmative. He submitted that the learned First Appellate Judge had rightly appreciated the facts of the case as well as question of law involved in the matter. He submitted that the case of the defendant right from the beginning is that they had purchased this land, and the same is set out by learned Trial Judge in para 5 which reads as under: “the defendant has filed his written statement at Exh.11 in both the R.C.S. No. 101/71 and 103/71 on 24.9.1971. The contents of both the written statement are the same. The defendants has contended both the suits on the following grounds: That it is not disputed that both the suit lands were formerly Chakariyat lands but they were known as Kadchi lands and Kedawala fields in the past. That on or about Sravan Vad-9 of S.V. 2002 Maganji Mohanji, Nathaji Mohanji Motiji Mohanji, Kacharaji and Tha. Galabji Motiji had sold the suit lands to him in consideration of Rs. That on or about Sravan Vad-9 of S.V. 2002 Maganji Mohanji, Nathaji Mohanji Motiji Mohanji, Kacharaji and Tha. Galabji Motiji had sold the suit lands to him in consideration of Rs. 650/- by an ordinary unregistered writing executed in a document book and since then the defendant is in possession of both the suit and as owner there of that of defendant is in possession of the suits lands for than 12 years that it is not true that the defendant has no right title or interest in the suit lands, that the plaintiffs are not members of joint undivided family, that it is not true that the deceased Motiji was Chokiyat and had received from the government several pieces of land including the suit lands for the purpose of cultivation as alleged that it is not true that the defendant was cultivating the suit lands as a labourer that it is not true that the name of the defendant has been entered in revenue records by wrongful means that the suit is bared by limitation, that the plaintiffs is not entitled to recover possession of the suit lands and mesne profits and hence both the suit must be dismissed with costs.” 12. Learned Advocate Mr. Desai for the opponents submitted that the document in question which is referred to and relied upon and produced at the appellate stage as is mentioned, even the substantial question of law on which the present second appeals were admitted-mark 14/2, was held to be in admissible and that is why the learned First Appellate Judge was pleased to answer the issue No. 1-that, “Is it proved by the plaintiff that they are the owners of the suit land-Survey No. 1336 situated in the same village Taluka Kalol”, in affirmative. He submitted that the learned First Appellate Judge after careful consideration of the evidence on record and the contentions raised by the parties and being convinced of the fact that the defendants were in possession of the suit land, hostile to the interest of the plaintiff answered issue No. 2 in affirmative, that, “Is it proved by the defendant in both the Suits No. 101/71 and 103/71 that he has become the owner of the suit lands bearing Survey Nos. 1134 and 1136 by adverse possession”. 1134 and 1136 by adverse possession”. Learned Advocate for the opponent herein submitted that infact the learned trial judge himself has recorded the finding in paragraph 10 in the form of admission by P.W. 3 Meraji Mohanji at Exh. 56 that the defendant is cultivating three pieces of land since may years. (emphasis supplied). 13. Learned Advocate for the opponent submitted that the document was executed in the Samvat Year 2002 and since then the defendant is in possession of the disputed property. Learned Advocate for the opponent submitted that it is true that the said document is in the form of ordinary unregistered writing executed in a document book but then it is sufficient to indicate that the possession had passed on to the defendant at the time of execution of that writing. Learned Advocate for the opponent submitted that it is a well settled position of law that such a document cannot be looked into and cannot be pressed into service for contending that the defendant has become owner by virtue of that document but such document can always be looked into for collateral purpose and that collateral purpose is that, at the time of execution of that writing, even if it is not called the document, the transfer of possession had passed on to the defendant from the plaintiff. Learned Advocate for the opponent also submitted the fact that the plaintiffs were required to file a suit for possession, is indicative of the fact that the defendant was in possession and that is why the suit for getting back the possession was required to be filed. He submitted that as an important ingredient to establish adverse possession, it is required to be shown that the person claiming the adverse possession was in possession of the property, hostile to the right of possession of the owner. Learned Advocate for the opponent submitted that in the present case the defendant is in hostile possession of the property from the date of that writing which was executed in samvat year 2002 and since then they have continued to be in possession and, therefore, the learned First Appellate Judge has answered the issue No. 2 in affirmative holding that the defendant has become the owner of the suit lands by adverse possession. 14. 14. Having gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Judge, judgment and order passed by the learned first Appellate Judge and after having considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellant and learned Advocate for the opponent this Court answers the substantial question of law as under: (1) Whether the document mark 14/2 exhibited at the appellate stage is properly proved to show that sale in favour of the respondents? (2) Whether the respondents were in permissive possession of the lands as tenants and not as owners? (3) Whether the respondents have proved adverse possession? (1) In negative (2) In negative (first part). The respondents were in (hostile) possession as owners. (3) In affirmative. 15. In the result, both the second appeals fail and the same are dismissed.