ORDER N.K. Agarwal, J. 1. Instant second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 6-4-1994 passed by the Vlth Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 10-A/93 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 3-8-1980 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class I, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 31-A/77 has been dismissed. 2. The instant second appeal was admitted for hearing by this Court on 14-7-1994 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether Ex. P-l and Ex. P-2 receipts are admissible in evidence under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, so as to confer title upon the Plaintiffs? (ii) Whether the Plaintiffs have perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession? Facts of the case in brief are as under: 3. Following genelogical tree explains the relationship between the parties: 4. According to the Plaintiffs, Lagan Sai was original holder of 10.15 acres of agricultural land at mouja Haranmundi, P.C. No. 43, R.I. Circle Pali, Tehsil Katghora, District Bilaspur. Upon his death, his three sons inherited his estate including the land aforesaid. According to the Plaintiffs, Bhursu and Baba by receipts dated 10-4-1924 and 14-4-1924 (Exs. P-l and P-2) relinquished their interest in favour of their brother Dallu, fastened with their liability to repay their loan as mentioned therein. Dallu and after his death, his three sons have been in possession since then, though khata being joint. Taking advantage of entries in Khata, Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed an application claiming partition under Section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (briefly, 'the Code'), allowed by the Tehsildar by order dated 18-3-1977. Due to the above, the Plaintiffs have instituted a suit for declaration of their title over the suit land. In alternative, the Plaintiffs claimed title by prescription for the receipts Exs. P-l and P-2 of 1924 were acted upon and they were in possession ever since 1924. 5. By judgment dated 3-8-1980, the trial Court dismissed the suit finding inter alia: (i) Parties were in joint possession over the suit land though they had been claiming their exclusive possession; (ii) Receipts Exs. P-l and P-2 did not confer title upon Dallu being unregistered though were admissible for collateral purposes; and (iii) The Plaintiffs have not prescribed title by adverse possession. 6. P-l and P-2 did not confer title upon Dallu being unregistered though were admissible for collateral purposes; and (iii) The Plaintiffs have not prescribed title by adverse possession. 6. Thereagainst, first appeal preferred was also dismissed holding: (i) Receipts Exs. P-l and P-2 being suspicious cannot be believed, no presumption can be drawn under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, (briefly, 'the Act') with regard to its due execution; (ii) Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land ever since 1943; (iii) Plaintiffs have not prescribed title by adverse possession. 7. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Appellant relying upon the judgment of High Court of Oudh in case of Mahipal Singh v. Sarjoo Prasad AIR 1926 Oudh 141 would submit, the Plaintiffs have acquired title of the suit land under unregistered relinquishment deed Exs. P-l and P-2 executed by late Dallu in the year 1924 and continued to remain in possession ever since 1924 pursuant to above deeds and, therefore, although the documents relating to their title may be invalid for want of registration or on any other ground, yet possession having lasted for more than 12 years, their title became unassailable. The first appellate court had also found Plaintiffs in exclusive possession ever since 1943 and, therefore, learned both the Courts below have erred in dismissing Plaintiffs' suit. 8. On the other hand, Shri H.S. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents would submit, documents Exs. P-l and P-2 cannot be relied upon; the first appellate court had already held in para 10 of its judgment the documents Exs. P-l and P-2 suspicious and no presumption can be drawn regarding their due execution under Section 90 of the Act. He would further submit, during partition proceedings, Plaintiffs have admitted, property is joint, each branch having l/3rd share in it, also have stated its partition can be effected only after clearing the debt amount of "10 bullock cart load paddy" which clearly shows the above documents were never acted upon nor the Plaintiffs have asserted their title over the suit land in pursuance thereof and as such, the Plaintiffs have not prescribed any title over the suit land by adverse possession. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records of the both the Courts below. 10. Section 90 of the Evidence Act reads thus: 90. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records of the both the Courts below. 10. Section 90 of the Evidence Act reads thus: 90. Presumption as to documents thirty years old.--Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. Explanation.--Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable. 11. The object of this section is not to make it too difficult for persons relying upon ancient documents to utilize those documents in proving their case. It is intended to do away with the unsuperable difficulty of proving the handwriting, execution, and attestation of documents in the ordinary way after the lapse of may years. 12. When a document is or purports to be more than thirty years old, if it be produced from what the court considers to custody, it may be presumed (a) that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and (b) that it was duly executed and attested by the person by whom it purports to be executed and attested. 13. The section nowhere provides that in terms thereof authenticity of the recitals contained in any document is presumed to be correct. Even if, a formal execution of a document is proved, the same by itself cannot lead to a presumption that the recitals contained therein are also correct. Mere execution of a document in other words does not lead to the conclusion that the recitals made therein are correct. 14. The Supreme Court in case of Gangamma and Ors. Even if, a formal execution of a document is proved, the same by itself cannot lead to a presumption that the recitals contained therein are also correct. Mere execution of a document in other words does not lead to the conclusion that the recitals made therein are correct. 14. The Supreme Court in case of Gangamma and Ors. v. Shivalingaiah 2005(9) SCC 359 while dealing with Sections 61 to 63, 90, 91 and 93 of the Evidence Act has held in para 7 and 8 of its judgment, presumption extends merely to the extent of the authenticity of any handwriting contained in or execution or attestation of a document. Section 90 nowhere provides that in terms thereof the authenticity of the recitals contained in any document is presumed. Even if a formal execution of a document is proved, the same by itself cannot lead to a presumption that recitals contained therein are also correct and subject to Sections 91 and 92, it is open to the parties to raise a plea contrary thereto. 15. Now coming to the facts of the case, Appellant Gajar Singh during partition proceedings before the Naib Tehsildar himself stated, Ramdular, Sakhan and he along with Shiv Prasad Budhwara each had l/3rd share in the joint property. There is loan of 10 bullock cart load paddy. If Ramdular and Sakhan are ready to repay the loan, then he is also ready to give their share. In fact the Tehsildar's order of partition has not been challenged. Revenue record shows their joint possession. Even after death of Dallu, Bhursu and Baba, the names of their legal representatives were recorded jointly over the suit land. As per statement of Patel examined by Plaintiff, Patwari used to record joint possession during Girdawali. The documents Ex. P-l and P-2 neither produced before the Tehsildar nor Plaintiffs asserted their title in pursuance thereof. Admittedly, the documents are unregistered, not admissible under Section 17 of the Registration Act. On appreciation of facts, the first appellate court found the above documents as suspicious. Even if a formal execution of a document is proved, the same by itself cannot lead to a presumption that recitals contained therein are also correct. Section 90 only permits a party to utilize old documents without proving handwriting, execution and attestation in the ordinary way, a document otherwise inadmissible will not become admissible under this section. Even if a formal execution of a document is proved, the same by itself cannot lead to a presumption that recitals contained therein are also correct. Section 90 only permits a party to utilize old documents without proving handwriting, execution and attestation in the ordinary way, a document otherwise inadmissible will not become admissible under this section. Looking to over all circumstances of the case, in my opinion, above documents are not admissible in evidence under Section 90 of the Act so as to confer title upon Plaintiffs. 16. The Plaintiffs have not claimed possession of the suit land assuming title on themselves in pursuance of documents Ex. P-l and P-2 as held hereinabove. As per finding of the first appellate court, the Plaintiffs came into possession in the year 1943. It is well established rule of law that if a co-sharer has been in possession of a particular land, his possession cannot be considered adverse against the other co-sharers and his possession must be deemed to be on behalf of them as held by the High Court of Oudh in Mahipal Singh's case AIR 1926 Oudh 141 (supra) relied upon by the Appellant. 17. Adverse possession means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner. 18. The Supreme Court in case of Annasaheb v. B.B. Patil AIR 1995 SC 895 has held, "Adverse possession" means a hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, burden is on the Defendants to prove affirmatively. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person, constitute adverse possession, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. The person who bases his title on adverse possession, therefore, must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. 19. The person who bases his title on adverse possession, therefore, must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. 19. Looking to every aspect of the matter in the considered opinion of this Court, Plaintiffs have not perfected their title to the suit land by adverse possession. In view of above both the substantial questions of law are answered against the Plaintiffs. 20. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed. 21. No order as to costs. 22. Decree be drawn accordingly.